Allahabad High Court

HAREESHCHANDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: SAMEER JAIN

Holding

The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Hareeshchandra, who was arrested in a case under IPC sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 for allegedly cheating a person of Rs 1,00,000 by promising a job. The applicant contended that the FIR was vague, that the alleged receipt of money was not detailed, and that the complaint was motivated by a loan dispute. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s factual contentions. The Court noted that the offences are bailable and triable by a Magistrate, the FIR lacked specific particulars, and the applicant’s prior criminal history had been explained and did not preclude bail. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond, sureties and standard conditions, without expressing any view on the merits of the case.

Issues considered

Whether the allegations under IPC sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 constitute a ground to deny bail.
Whether the FIR is sufficiently specific to justify denial of bail.
Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history bars the grant of bail.
Whether the offences are bailable and triable by a Magistrate, permitting bail.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

bail
fraud
IPC 420
IPC 467
IPC 468
IPC 471
criminal procedure
magistrate trial
prior criminal history

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5036 of 2026

Hareeshchandra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Virendra
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arvind Kumar, G.A.

Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri S.B. Singh,
learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.350 of 2022, under Sections 420, 468,
467, 471 IPC, Police Station Kwarsi, District Aligarh, during pendency
of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, as per allegation,
applicant by playing fraud obtained Rs.1,00,000/- from the informant
under the false promise to provide job to him but entire allegations
levelled against him are totally false.

4. He next submits, even FIR of the present case prima facie appears to be
based on vague facts as in the FIR, it has not been mentioned that when
and how applicant received Rs.1,00,000/- from the informant.

5. He next submits, actually, applicant never obtained any money from
the informant and his dispute arose with him with regard to some loan and
thereafter, informant lodged FIR of the present case against the applicant.

6. He further submits, apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of two other cases but his criminal history has been
explained in the instant bail application and in one case final report has
BAIL No. 5036 of 2026
2

been submitted and in another case applicant is on bail.

7. He further argued, in the present matter applicant is in jail since
25.12.2025 and all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate.

8. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant
opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts
advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

9. However, as per allegation applicant by playing fraud received
Rs.1,00,000/- from the informant under the false promise to provide job to
him but it reflects, neither in the FIR nor in the statement recorded during
investigation informant could disclose when and how applicant received
money from him and considering this fact prima facie allegation levelled
against the applicant appears to be vague.

10. Further, however it reflects, apart from the present case applicant is
having criminal history of two other cases but his criminal history has
been explained and in one case final report has been submitted and in
another case applicant is on bail.

11. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 25.12.2025.

12. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

13. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.

14. Let the applicant -Hareeshchandra be released on bail in the
aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed,
unless his personal presence is exempted.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
BAIL No. 5036 of 2026
3

dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.

15. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will
be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of
the bail of the applicant.

16. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
during trial.

(Sameer Jain,J.)
May 5, 2026
S.A.

Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…