Allahabad High Court
RAISversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The court held that, given the return of the alleged misappropriated amount, the informant’s lack of objection, and the bailable, magistrate‑triable nature of the offences, the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The applicant, Rais, sought bail in a criminal case (Crime No. 06 of 2026) involving alleged fraud and several IPC offences, claiming he had returned the entire misappropriated amount of Rs.5,30,000 to the informant and that the informant raised no objection. The State opposed bail, but the Assistant Government Advocate indicated no objection if the amount was returned. The informant’s counsel also confirmed the return of the money and consented to bail. The court noted the applicant’s prior criminal history, which was explained and did not involve non‑bailable offences, and observed that all alleged offences are triable by a Magistrate. Considering the return of the money, the informant’s consent, and the bailable nature of the charges, the court granted bail with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the alleged misappropriated amount has been returned and the informant consents.
- Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history affects the grant of bail.
- Whether the nature of the offences (triable by Magistrate) influences bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 335, 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- fraud
- misappropriation
- Indian Penal Code
- magistrate jurisdiction
- informant consent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4340 of 2026
Rais
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhay Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Mukesh Chandra Gupta, Shubham
Prakash Gupta
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Abhay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd.
Vaish Khan, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Shubham Prakash Gupta,
learned counsel for informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the
State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 06 of 2026, under Sections 318(4), 338, 335,
336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Kithore, District Meerut
during pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however, as per allegation,
applicant duped the informant and obtained total Rs.5,30,000/- from him but
entire allegation leveled against applicant is totally false.
4. He further submits, even dispute between both the parties have been
settled and applicant has already returned the entire misappropriated amount
to the informant. He further submits, even all the alleged offences are triable
by Magistrate.
5. He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is
having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to cow
slaughter act and in that case he is on bail.
6. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since
03.01.2026 i.e. for last more than four months.
BAIL No. 4340 of 2026
2
7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but submits, if
applicant has returned the entire misappropriated amount to the informant
then he is having no objection if applicant is released on bail.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant also conceded the fact
that entire alleged misappropriated amount has been returned by the
applicant to the informant and informant is having no objection if applicant
is released on bail.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
10. However, as per allegation, applicant by playing fraud misappropriated
Rs. 5,30,000/- from the informant but it reflects, entire alleged
misappropriated amount has been returned by the applicant to the informant.
11. Further, it reflects, informant is having no objection if applicant is
released on bail.
12. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of one another case but his criminal history has been
explained in the instant bail application and in that case applicant is on bail.
Further, all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate.
13. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 03.01.2026 i.e. for
last more than four months.
14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
the instant bail application is allowed.
16. Let the applicant - Rais be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
BAIL No. 4340 of 2026
3
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
17. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be
at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the
bail of the applicant.
18. 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.
May 5, 2026
AK Pandey
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…