Harisharan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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.

¶4

Court No. - 73

¶5

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶6

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

¶7

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.

¶8

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

¶9

NABAIL No. 3898 of 2026

¶10

2

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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."

¶16

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

¶17

NABAIL No. 3898 of 2026

¶18

3

¶19

refusal of bail.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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:-

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court concerned.

¶26

NABAIL No. 3898 of 2026

¶27

4

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(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.

¶31

(vii) The applicants shall maintain law and order.

¶32

(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.

¶33

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

¶34

(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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶38

May 6, 2026 VMA

¶39

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

Harisharan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harisharan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Mohd. Shifat @ Sifat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Vs Murari Lal and 2 Others

Harsh Mittal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyam Sahu vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kumar vs Murari Lal and 2 Others

Vaibhav Dhama vs State of U.P. and Another