Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.
Ashish Kumar Singh Sisodiya – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3565 of 2024
Decided On : 29-03-2024
Bail Application - Compromise between Parties - The court allowed the bail application of the accused/applicant based on the compromise between the parties, the payment of the due amount, the period of custody already undergone, and the explanation of the applicant's criminal history.
Fact of the Case:
The accused/applicant filed a bail application in a case involving multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act, claiming to be falsely implicated. The applicant cited a compromise between the parties and the payment of the due amount as reasons for seeking bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the bail application, considering the compromise between the parties, the payment of the due amount, the period of custody already undergone by the applicant, and the explanation of the applicant's criminal history.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused/applicant should be granted bail in a case involving serious offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the compromise between the parties, the payment of the due amount, the period of custody already undergone, and the explanation of the applicant's criminal history as grounds for granting bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application and ordered the release of the accused/applicant on bail, subject to certain conditions.
JUDGMENT :
MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, as well as Shri Rahul Yadav, Advocate, who has put in appearance and filed his vakalatnama/power along with short-counter affidavit on behalf of the informant/complainant and perused the record. The short counter affidavit filed along with vakalatnama/power is taken on record.
Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter, including upto date case diary.
2. This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant-Ashish Kumar Singh Sisodiya for grant of bail in Case Crime No. 080 of 2024, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 and 506 IPC read with section 66D of Information Technology (Amendments) Act, 2008 lodged at police station Asandra, district Barabanki, during trial.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant, while pressing the bail application, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and, he has not committed any offence, as claimed by the prosecution and the allegations have been levelled in the FIR as well as in the statement of the prosecution witnesses are false, concocted and could not be believed. It is vehemently submitted that the allegations have been levelled against the applicant that he has taken huge amount of money from the informant, however, during the course of investigation a compromise has taken place between the applicant and the informant/complainant and, it is in lieu of that compromise, the informant-complainant is not opposing the plea of bail of the applicant. Attention of this court has been drawn towards written compromise dated 05.03.2024 entered into between the wife of the applicant and the informant/complainant and, it is stated therein that the money which was due upon the applicant has been received by the informant/complainant. It is also submitted that in two cases where identical allegations have been levelled against the applicant, the applicant has been enlarged on bail by this court vide orders dated 19.03.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application nos. 2871 of 2024 and 2847 of 2024 respectively, copies of which have been produced by the learned counsel for the applicant for perusal.
4. It is next submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 09.02.2024. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Para-17 of the affidavit enclosed with the bail application and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.
5. Learned A.G.A. however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. Shri Rahul Yadav, learned counsel for the informant/complainant, submits that he, under the instructions given by the informant/complainant and relying on the short-counter affidavit filed on behalf of the informant/complainant, is making his submission that he is not opposing the bail plea of the applicant as the dispute between the parties has been settled.
7. Considering the fact that the informant/complainant and the wife of the applicant has compromised the dispute under which the money which was due upon the applicant has been paid back to the informant/complainant and having regard to the period of custody already undergone by the applicant in this case and also the fact that criminal history of the applicant has been explained adequately, a case for bail is emerging in favour of the applicant.
8. In result, the instant bail application is allowed.
9. Let the accused/applicant-Ashish Kumar Singh Sisodiya involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:
The court may consider a compromise between the parties, the payment of the due amount, the period of custody already undergone, and the explanation of the applicant's criminal history as grounds for....
The court determined that allegations of misappropriation reflected a civil dispute rather than criminal intent, allowing bail based on the absence of prior criminal history and ongoing civil complai....
The court granted bail based on the lack of evidence against the applicant and the absence of prior criminal history, emphasizing the need for fair trial conditions.
The presumption of innocence and the right to liberty under Article 21 necessitate granting bail unless compelling reasons exist to deny it.
The court established that the absence of substantial evidence against an accused, particularly when not named in the FIR, is a significant factor in granting bail.
The court permits bail when the prosecution's claims are unsupported by specific evidence and the petitioner has been incarcerated for a considerable time without trial.
Bail granted based on lack of evidence and clean antecedents, subject to conditions.
Granting bail based on lack of specific allegation, absence of criminal history, and parity with co-accused.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
