Sharad Saxena Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21311 of 2025

Sharad Saxena

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Raju Kanaujia
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 68

¶6

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

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

¶8

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:-

¶9

"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.

¶10

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.

¶11

3. Dismissed accordingly. "

¶12

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

¶13

BAIL No. 21311 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

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.

¶16

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:-

¶17

"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."

¶18

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 cooperate 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.

¶19

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶20

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

¶21

BAIL No. 21311 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

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

¶24

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:

¶25

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶26

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

¶27

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and cooperate in the trial.

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶31

April 13, 2026 Vibha Singh

¶32

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

Sharad Saxena v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharad Saxena v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Yadav vs State of U.P.

Smt Neelam Sharma vs State of U.P.

Alok Shukla Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Up at Lko

Deepak Saini Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Shadab vs State of U.P.

Smt Lallo Devi @ Chandrawati and 2 Others Vs Subhash Kumar Patel and 5 Others