Allahabad High Court
KAPIL RASTOGIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail during the pendency of the trial despite the seriousness of the charges.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Kapil Rastogi, who is accused under Sections 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B IPC in a case pending since 2022. The applicant claimed innocence, cited a compromise deed resolving the commercial dispute, and noted that a co‑accused's case had been quashed under Section 482 CrPC. The State opposed bail, but the court, after reviewing the record and the nature of the allegations, found no likelihood of evidence tampering, intimidation of witnesses, or flight risk. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and several conditions to safeguard the trial process. The order expressly refrains from commenting on the merits of the underlying criminal case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused facing multiple serious IPC offences pending trial
- Whether the existence of a compromise deed and the quashing of a co‑accused’s case justify bail
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or fleeing
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- bail
- IPC offences
- compromise deed
- Section 482 CrPC
- trial pendency
- sureties
- evidence tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30301 of 2026
Kapil Rastogi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Tarun Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-
respondent and perused the record of the case.
The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on
bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2022, under Sections 418, 420, 467, 468,
471, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Kundarki, District- Moradabad, during
pendency of the trial in the court concerned.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case
due to some ulterior motive. It is next submitted that applicant is having
no concern with the allegations levelled against him and he has not
committed any offence as alleged by prosecution. It is further submitted
that both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and pursuant
thereto, a compromise deed dated 08.02.2024 has been duly executed
between the parties, which has been annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the
instant bail application. A perusal of the said compromise deed makes it
evident that the dispute between the parties arose out of a
commercial/business transaction involving monetary dealings. In view of
the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, all disputes and
differences between them have since been resolved and no dispute
remains subsisting between the parties in respect thereof. On the basis of
said compromise, entire proceedings of the subject case pending against
co-accused Sarthak Rastogi has been quashed by co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 22.8.2025 in Application U/s 482 No. 39859
of 2024. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph
no. 10 of the instant bail application and he is languishing in jail since
10.01.2023 i.e. for last more than three and half years. It is also submitted
that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases
in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
BAIL No. 30301 of 2026
2
The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record,
evidence and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of
the trial.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
Let applicant, Kapil Rastogi be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following
conditions:-
(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected.
(v). The applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer or tamper with the evidence.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the
sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at
liberty to cancel the bail.
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.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
September 8, 2026
KK Patel
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHN KANT PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…