Allowed

Harikesh @ Harikesh Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2025BAIL/11534/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant charged under BNS and IT Act sections for allegedly inducing investors in a share-trading scheme and issuing dishonoured cheques. Noting interim protection given to similarly placed co-accused and bail granted to a co-accused by the Sessions Court, the court released the applicant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence or pressurising witnesses.

Harikesh @ Harikesh Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11534 of 2025

¶3

Harikesh @ Harikesh Prasad

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Amitesh Pratap Singh : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 15

¶10

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶12

According to the prosecution, the applicant along with the co-accused allegedly persuaded the informant and his family members to invest in the applicant’s company, which is purportedly engaged in share-trading activities, by assuring them of high returns. It is alleged that the informant and his family invested Rs.18,00,000/- through online transactions and Rs. 16,00,000/- in cash. It has further been alleged that the cheques issued by the company to the informant and others were dishonoured.

¶13

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is merely an employee of the share-trading companies, namely Astha Infra Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Aastha Retailers Pvt. Ltd., and Aastha Gems and Jewelers Pvt. Ltd., and has no role in the alleged offence. It is stated that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Attention has been drawn to the fact that the Managing Director, co-accused Vishwajeet Srivastava, has been granted interim protection by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9575 of 2025 vide order dated 15.10.2025, and similarly, co-accused Minakshi and others have also been extended interim protection by the Division Bench vide order dated 15.10.2025 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9543 of 2025.

¶14

It is further contended that the applicant is in custody since 23.08.2025, has

¶15

BAIL No. 11534 of 2025

¶16

¶17

duly explained his criminal antecedents in paragraph 19 of the bail application as well as paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The coaccused Chandan Sharma @ Chandan Kumar Sharma has already been granted bail by the Court of Sessions Judge, Lucknow (Annexure-4 to the bail application). The applicant’s bail was rejected by the court below only on the ground of his criminal antecedents.

¶18

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶20

Considering the interim protection granted to similarly situated co-accused by the Division Bench of this Court, the bail granted to co-accused by the Sessions Court, the explanation of criminal antecedents furnished by the applicant, the filing of the charge sheet, and the fact that he is in custody since 23.08.2025, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant Harikesh @ Harikesh Prasad, involved in Case Crime No. 133/2025, under Sections 318[4], 319(2), 316[5] 3/5 of the BNS [corresponding section 420, 419, 409, 34 I.P.C.] and 66D of IT Act, P.S.Cyber Crime Police Station, District Lucknow, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶23

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶24

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶25

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶26

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit

¶27

BAIL No. 11534 of 2025

¶28

¶29

and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶30

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶32

December 5, 2025 R.C.

¶33

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harikesh @ Harikesh Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikesh @ Harikesh Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Irshad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Naresh Yadav @ Lalu Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Ministry Lko.

Ramjaan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Umesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Gopal Swaroop Jauhari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.