Allahabad High Court

SHARAD SAXENAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 12 April 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court held that bail should be granted to the applicant subject to prescribed conditions.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a second bail application filed by Sharad Saxena, who is charged under Sections 420, 406, 506, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC for allegedly obtaining money by promising government jobs. The earlier bail plea was dismissed ex‑parte on the ground that the applicant had not pressed the application and the trial appeared to be concluded. The applicant’s counsel argued that he is innocent, the case is a false implication, and cited a recent Supreme Court decision (Deepak Kumar Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 INSC 117) supporting bail in similar circumstances. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences and risk of witness tampering. After weighing the facts, the court found that, despite the gravity of the charges, there was no substantial risk of flight or evidence tampering and therefore granted bail with conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted in a case involving offences under Sections 420, 406, 506, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
Whether the applicant poses a flight risk or a risk of tampering with evidence or witnesses.
Whether the earlier ex‑parte dismissal due to lapse of time can be revisited.
Whether the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Deepak Kumar Shrivas v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024 INSC 117) is applicable to the present bail application.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506

Subjects

bail
Indian Penal Code
fraud
criminal conspiracy
witness tampering
Supreme Court precedent
ex‑parte dismissal

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21311 of 2025

Sharad Saxena
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raju Kanaujia
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri Rajiv Kannaujia, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Bijendra Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.

This is a second bail application on behalf of the applicant-Sharad Saxena
seeking the enlargement on bail of applicant in Case Crime No. 1168 of
2017, under Sections 420, 406, 506, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C., Police
Station-Kannauj, District Kannauj, during the pendency of the trial before
the court below. The bail application of the applicant before this Court
was rejected vide ex-parte order dated 03.12.2019 observing as under:-

"1. This is a bail application pending since 2018. Called in revise. None
appeared to press it. Learned A.G.A. is present for State. In the
circumstances, I myself have perused the record.

2. It appears that either trial has concluded or applicant has lost interest
for any other reason and that's why none is present to press it. Therefore,
by efflux of time, this application has rendered infructuous.

3. Dismissed accordingly. "

Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the
applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very
case crime number for ulterior motives. The F.I.R. giving rise to the case
crime number in question was lodged nominating the applicant along with
two other persons with the allegation that the accused persons came to his
BAIL No. 21311 of 2025
2

coaching institute and induced eight boys for parting with 45 Lacs for
appointment in Railways, and Rs. 5 Lacs for appointment on group D
posts and Rs. 7.50 Lacs for appointment on Group C posts, but till date
neither the jobs were offered nor the money taken was returned.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge-sheet against the
applicant and co-accused persons was filed on 19.06.2018. The reasons
for not pursuing the bail application before this Court have been
explained in paras 6 & 7 of the supplementary affidavit dated 07.12.2025.
It is further argued that further proceedings of the case have been stayed
against co-accused-Madhukar Saxena and the other co-accused has been
enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.08.2018. Much
emphasis has been drawn by learned counsel for the applicant to the Para
13 of decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Deepak Kumar
Shrivas and another versus State of Chattisgarh and others, reported in
2024 INSC 117, which is as under:-

"13. A reading of the entire material on record clearly reflects that it was
totally an unlawful contract between the parties where money was being
paid for securing a job in the government department(s) or private sector.
Apparently, a suit for recovery could not have been filed for the said
purpose and even if it could be filed, it could be difficult to establish the
same where the payment was entirely in cash. Therefore, the respondent
no.6 found out a better medium to recover the said amount by building
pressure on the appellant and his brother by lodging the FIR. Under the
threat of criminal prosecution, may be the appellant would have tried to
sort out and settle the dispute by shelving out some money."

It is further argued that the trial is not proceeding against the applicant
and he is languishing in jail since 19.06.2018. The applicant shall co-
operate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail if released on
bail. The applicant is not a flight risk. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations,
severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting
evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima
BAIL No. 21311 of 2025
3

facie, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Sharad Saxena, involved in above mentioned
case crime number be released on bail, on her executing a personal bond
and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-
operate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court,
unless her personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below
will be at liberty to proceed to cancel her bail.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
April 13, 2026
Vibha Singh

Digitally signed by :-
VIBHA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…