Hareeshchandra Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5036 of 2026

¶3

Hareeshchandra

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P.	...	..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Singh	Virendra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Arvind Kumar, G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 66

¶7

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

BAIL No. 5036 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

been submitted and in another case applicant is on bail.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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:-

¶25

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

¶26

(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

¶27

BAIL No. 5036 of 2026

¶28

3

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶34

May 5, 2026 S.A.

¶35

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

Hareeshchandra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hareeshchandra 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitendra Singh vs State of U.P.

Rambhavan vs State of U.P.

Raju vs State of U.P.

Ankur Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P.

Asif Vs State of U.P.