Allahabad High Court
RAJENDRA SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
Since the complainant’s investment was returned and a compromise was effected, there was no longer a prima facie case, and bail was granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Rajendra Sharma, who was in custody for offences alleged under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 61(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR alleged that Sharma and co‑accused denied a former investor the withdrawal of his investment in a private company, leading to charges of cheating and related offences. The applicant argued that the investor’s money had been fully repaid, a compromise was executed on 31 July 2025 and affirmed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and that the co‑accused Rajiv Kumar Sharma had been exonerated. The State’s brief holder did not contest these facts, and the first informant’s counsel admitted the return of funds and raised no objection to bail. The Court held that the restitution and compromise removed the prima facie case, making bail appropriate, and ordered release on personal bond with sureties and standard conditions. Consequently, the bail application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita when the complainant’s investment has been returned and a compromise has been effected.
- Whether the existence of a compromise and restitution defeats the prima facie case under Sections 318, 316, 61, 352 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 173(4), 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(5), 318(4), 351(2), 352, 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- compromise
- restitution
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 483
- Section 318
- Section 352
- Section 351
- Section 316
- Section 61
- Section 173
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41419 of 2025
Rajendra Sharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Nityanand Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Shri Nityanand Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Shashank Singh, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State of U.P. as
also Shri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the first
informant and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Rajendra
Sharma, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 304 of 2025, under
Sections 318 (4), 316 (5), 61 (2), 352, 351 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur, during the
pendency of the trial before the Court below. The bail application of the
applicant before the Court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge,
Shahjahanpur.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is
innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and
is languishing in jail since 27.12.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that as per the allegation set out in the first information report
lodged by the first informant Ramesh Kumar Saxena son of late Ram Dulare
Saxena, which was lodged resorting to provisions of Section 173 (4) of
BNSS, nominating six persons including the applicant herein, with the
allegation that co-accused Rajiv Kumar Sharma started a private company in
the name and style of Pratistha Producer Company Ltd., having its registered
office at Indira Awas Sahkari Colony, Moradabad, in which he was working
BAIL No. 41419 of 2025
2
as the Chief Managing Director and the applicant and other co-accused were
employees. The first informant and his friend are stated to have made
investment in the said firm and sought to withdraw the said investment on its
maturity, but the nominated persons did not permit the informant to do so. It
is next contended that the criminal history of two cases have been duly
explained by the applicant by way of supplementary affidavit. It is also
contended that the charge sheet in this case has been filed against the
applicant on 20.8.2025 under Section 318 (4), 352, 351 (2), 316 (5), 61 (2)
BNS and co-accused Chandan Sharma has been exonerated. The
investigation against other co-accused is pending.
It is also contended by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused
Rajiv Kumar Sharma i.e. the Chief Managing Director has returned the
funds stated to have been invested by the first informant and first informant
entered into a compromise on 31.7.2025, which has been brought on record
as Annexure 5 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The
said compromise was also forwarded to the Superintendent of Police and the
Investigating Officer and an affidavit is also stated o have been executed by
the first informant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur on
16.9.2025 before whom the case is being tried.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the amount invested
by the first informant has already been repaid to the applicant and in such
circumstances, no offence as alleged can be said to be made out against the
applicant and he is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, bail has been
prayed for.
Shri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel, who has put in appearance
on behalf of first informant has filed short counter affidavit annexing copy of
the compromise dated 13.7.2025 as also the compromise affidavit dated
16.9.2025, stated to have been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Shahjahanpur and in Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit it is admitted that
funds of the first informant has been returned. He has no objection, if the
applicant, is released on bail.
Learned Brief Holder for the State does not dispute the above factual aspect
of the matter.
BAIL No. 41419 of 2025
3
Considering all above facts and circumstances and taking note of the fact
that the amount involved vis-a-vis the informant of the present case has
already been returned, a case for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the accused-applicant, Rajendra Sharma, involved in above mentioned
case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and
two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and
co-operate in the trial.
4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the
trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by
the court concerned.
In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below
will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
April 1, 2026
Ravi Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…