Allahabad High Court

HARISHARAN AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: VIKRAM D CHAUHAN

Holding

The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants, subject to a personal bond and specified conditions.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 CrPC for four individuals accused of offences under IPC sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicants, who were lekhpals, claimed innocence and argued that there was no prima facie case, while the State highlighted the criminal history of one applicant but offered no evidence of tampering or intimidation. The court noted that a criminal antecedent alone does not preclude bail and that the State failed to demonstrate any risk to the investigation or witnesses. Citing Supreme Court precedents that a history‑sheeter may still be granted bail and that pending cases are not a ground for denial, the court held that anticipatory bail should be granted. The court ordered the applicants to furnish a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties and imposed standard conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite the criminal antecedents of one applicant.
Whether the State has shown a likelihood of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or flight that would justify denial of bail.
Whether the nature and gravity of the alleged offences preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 420, 468, 471
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 13(1)(d), 13(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
bail jurisprudence
criminal antecedents
IPC offences
Prevention of Corruption Act
high court
Section 482 CrPC
bond conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 3898 of 2026

Harisharan And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar, Vinod Kumar Tirpathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 73
HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA and
perused the material available on record.

2. The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the
prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants - Harisharan,
Brahmadutt Sharma, Atar Singh and Harveer Singh in Case Crime
No. 11 of 2018 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. and under
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, Police Station - Delhi Gate, District - Meerut.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that First
Information Report was lodged in the year 2018 in respect of an incident
of the year 2006-07. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits
that applicants are the Lekhpals and it is alleged that in respect of
scholarship applicants alleged to have issued income certificates. Learned
counsel for the applicants further submits that applicant nos. 1, 2 and 3
have no criminal history. Applicant no. 4 has criminal history which has
been explained in paragraph no. 4 of the supplementary affidavit. Learned
counsel for the applicants further submits that co-accused Guruvachan Pal
Singh, Raghuvansh Kumar Sharma, Jitendra Singh and Ravidutt Sharma
have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court by order dated 18.2.2026 passed in Criminal Misc.
Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 BNSS No. 1621 of 2026.
Applicants seek parity. It is further submitted by learned counsel for
NABAIL No. 3898 of 2026
2

applicants that applicants are innocent and have no concern with the
present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. No
prima facie case is made out against the applicants. If the applicants are
enlarged on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and
cooperate with the investigation. The applicants have apprehension of
their arrest by the police any time.

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but does not
dispute the parity.

5. It is not shown by learned AGA that the offence in question will have
impact on society at large. It is not shown that act causes harm to the
society. The accusations arise out of dispute between individuals. It is not
shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such
that the same would disentitle the applicants for relief of anticipatory bail.
Learned AGA has not raised concern that any prejudice would be caused
to free, fair and full investigation in the event the applicants are granted
anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been
shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the
evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere
presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use
his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

6. Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of
the applicant no. 4. No material or circumstance has been brought to the
notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating
of witness in previous criminal cases.

7. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex
Court in para 30 has observed:- "We may hasten to add that when we
state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to
have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a
significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of
crime in respect of which he has been booked."

8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020
(11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of
several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for
NABAIL No. 3898 of 2026
3

refusal of bail.

9. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, it is
not the case of the State that applicants might tamper with or otherwise
adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate
witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any
material that applicants in past attempted to evade the process of law. If
the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, they cannot be denied
bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances
on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to
accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the
applicants just on the ground that they had criminal antecedents.

10. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances
suggestive of the applicants fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of
justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or
intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for
the State.

11. In view of the above, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail in
respect of offence described in para 2 of the present order. In the event of
arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their
furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions:-

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a
police office as and when required.

(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade themselves from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police office.

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission
of the Court concerned.
NABAIL No. 3898 of 2026
4

(iv) In the event, applicants change residential address, the applicants
shall inform the court concerned/Investigating Officer about new
residential address in writing.

(v) The applicants shall cooperate with the investigation and make
themselves available for interrogation whenever required.

(vi) The applicants shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation
and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected
by the police.

(vii) The applicants shall maintain law and order.

(viii) The applicants shall at the time of execution of the bond, furnish
their address and mobile number to Investigating Officer, and the court
concerned.

(ix) The applicants shall regularly remain present during the trial, and
cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences.

(x) Non presence of the applicants or their counsel before the court
concerned shall be construed as violation of the present order and the
court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in
accordance with law.

12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer
shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of
protection granted to the applicants.

13. With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application
stands allowed.

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
May 6, 2026
VMA

Digitally signed by :-
VISHWA MOHAN ARORA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…