The Supreme Court of India has set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court that granted anticipatory bail to an accused facing twenty-two First Information Reports (FIRs). A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi observed that the extensive criminal history of the accused was, by itself, sufficient grounds for the High Court to deny the prayer for pre-arrest bail.
Background
The matter reached the Apex Court through a Special Leave Petition filed by the de facto complainant, Sharad Sehgal, who was aggrieved by the High Court of Allahabad’s order dated January 28, 2026. The High Court had allowed the anticipatory bail application (Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail Application No. 10864 of 2025) preferred by Respondent No. 2 (the accused).
The accused was sought in connection with Case Crime No. 780 of 2025, registered at Khurja Nagar Police Station, District Bulandshahr. The FIR alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 (Cheating), 467 (Forgery of valuable security), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (Using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Arguments and Court Observations
During the proceedings, the Court noted that Respondent No. 2 had been served with the notice of the appeal while in judicial custody at District Jail, Bulandshahr, in connection with a different crime. However, the respondent chose not to appear before the Supreme Court, either in person or through an advocate.
The appellant’s counsel submitted that the criminal antecedents of the respondent—specifically the existence of 22 FIRs—were explicitly brought to the notice of the High Court judge. Despite this information, the High Court exercised its discretion to grant anticipatory bail.
Expressing its disapproval of the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court remarked:
“It is very unfortunate that the High Court thought fit to release an accused on anticipatory bail against whom there are 22 FIRs registered for different offences. As on date also, he is in judicial custody in connection with some crime.”
The Bench further emphasized that the nature of the respondent’s record should have been a primary factor in the High Court’s decision-making process:
“The criminal antecedents of the Respondent No. 2 by itself were sufficient for the High Court to deny anticipatory bail.”
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in exercising its discretion in favor of the accused given the documented criminal history. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order dated January 28, 2026, was set aside.
Case Details Block:
- Case Title: Sharad Sehgal vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5309/2026)
- Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
- Date: 27th April, 2026
