Allahabad High Court
TANMAY ALIAS TANMAY BANDHOPADHYAY AND AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The applicants are entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Tanmay Bandhopadhyay and Subhmay Banerjee in a criminal case (Crime No. 368 of 2023) alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and criminal conspiracy under IPC sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B. The applicants, directors of a private firm, were accused of failing to deliver 100 tonnes of iron rods after receiving Rs. 42.52 lakh, leading the complainant to lodge the FIR. Their counsel argued that the matter was essentially a civil breach of contract, that there was no intention to cheat, and that the applicants had been in pre‑trial detention for over two years despite the offences being triable by a Magistrate. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions. Noting the prolonged detention, the nature of the alleged offence, and that the applicants had previously secured bail in 14 out of 16 similar cases, the Court held that bail was appropriate, subject to standard conditions. The bail application was therefore allowed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and criminal conspiracy under IPC sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B.
- Whether the alleged breach of contract nature of the dispute and the lack of intent to cheat justify bail.
- Whether the length of pre‑trial detention (over two years) and the applicant’s prior criminal history affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- bail
- cheating
- criminal breach of trust
- forgery
- IPC
- pre‑trial detention
- civil breach of contract
- economic offences
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6215 of 2026
Tanmay Alias Tanmay Bandhopadhyay And And
Another .....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akhand Pratap Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Akhand Pratap Tripathi, learned counsel for the
applicants and Dr.S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-
respondent.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the
applicants on bail in Case Crime No. 368 of 2023, under Sections
420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC, Police Station- Hariparvat,
District-Agra, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, as per allegation,
applicants were director of the private limited firm, which dealt in
trading of iron rods and an agreement was executed between the
firms of applicants and informant to provide 100 tones of iron rods
and after that an amount of about Rs. 42,52,000/- were transferred by
the informant in favour of the firm of the applicants and, thereafter,
applicants' firm also issued credit note to him but when in time firm of
the applicants could not provide material to the firm of the informant
then he lodged the FIR against them.
4. He further submits that it is a case in which it appears as firm of
the applicants, breached the agreement, therefore, FIR of the
present was lodged and, therefore, present dispute attract civil
liability. He further submits, even from the record, it reflects that
applicants were not having any intention to cheat the informant.
BAIL No. 6215 of 2026
2
5. He further submits, however, apart from the present case,
applicants are having criminal history of 16 other cases with similar
allegation but entire criminal history have been explained and in 14
cases, applicants have been released on bail.
6. He further submits, all the alleged offences are triable by
Magistrate and in the present matter, applicants are in jail since
02.05.2024 i.e., for the last more than two years.
7. He further submits that therefore, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, applicants may be enlarged on bail.
8. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer but could
not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel
for the applicants.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case.
10. However, there is allegation of misappropriation of amount of
more than Rs. 42,00,000/- of informant against the applicants but
considering the nature of allegation levelled against them, prima
facie, it appears to be a case of breach of contract.
11. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicants are
having criminal history of sixteen other cases but their entire criminal
history have been explained and in 14 cases, applicants are on bail.
12. Further, all the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and in
the present matter, applicants are in jail since 02.05.2024 i.e., for
the last more than two years.
13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case
discussed above, in my view applicants are entitled to be released on
bail.
14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
BAIL No. 6215 of 2026
3
15. Let the applicants- Tanmay alias Tanmay Bandhopadhyay and
Subhmay Banerjee 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 applicants shall appear before the trial court on the dates
fixed, unless their personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any
police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.
16. 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 applicants.
17. 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.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
May 12, 2026
Mini
Digitally signed by :-
MINI KANAUJIYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…