The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that a genuine compromise between parties in a non-heinous criminal case can be a decisive factor in granting bail, even when the offence involves alleged criminal breach of trust under Section 409 IPC. This order underscores the evolving judicial recognition of settlement as a legitimate consideration in bail jurisprudence under the new Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Sunil Jatav, is accused in Crime No. 950/2021 registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Dewas, Madhya Pradesh, for an alleged offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which pertains to criminal breach of trust by a public servant or by a banker, merchant, or agent. The case arises from allegations of financial fraud involving entrusted property or funds.
Key Facts
- The applicant was arrested and has been in judicial custody since 06.12.2025.
- The complainant has filed a formal application for compromise under Section 359 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, along with an affidavit affirming no objection to the grant of bail.
- The compromise was voluntarily entered into by both parties outside the court, with the complainant explicitly consenting to the applicant’s release on bail.
- The applicant has no prior criminal record, and the offence, while serious, is not classified as one involving violence, terrorism, or organized crime.
- The trial is expected to take a considerable duration to conclude.
Procedural History
- 06.12.2025: Applicant arrested and lodged in jail.
- 07.05.2026: First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, alternatively under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
- 07.05.2026: Compromise application and affidavit filed on record.
- 07.05.2026: Hearing before the High Court at Indore.
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel submitted that the dispute has been amicably resolved, the complainant has no objection to bail, and the applicant has been in custody for over five months with no prospect of early trial. The counsel emphasized that the compromise under Section 359 BNSS is a statutory mechanism designed to promote reconciliation and reduce undue incarceration.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed bail on the ground that eight other cases are pending against the applicant, suggesting a pattern of conduct. However, no details of these cases were provided in the record, nor was any evidence of their nature or stage presented before the Court.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought immediate release on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and surety, with conditions to ensure his appearance before the trial court.
The Legal Issue
Can a court grant bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 when the parties have settled the dispute out of court and the complainant has no objection, despite the accused facing multiple other pending cases?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly where the offence is non-violent and the parties have reached a compromise. The counsel invoked Section 359 of the BNSS, which explicitly permits compromise in certain compoundable offences and allows courts to consider such settlements as a mitigating factor. The counsel argued that prolonged pre-trial detention without a reasonable prospect of early trial violates the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The absence of any material showing danger of flight or tampering with evidence further supported the request.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the pendency of eight other cases against the applicant indicates a propensity for criminal conduct and that granting bail in one case may encourage further misconduct. However, the State did not produce any charge sheets, FIRs, or court orders relating to the other eight cases, nor did it demonstrate how those cases were connected to the present offence or posed a specific threat to the investigation or public order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a balanced assessment of the competing interests. It noted that while the offence under Section 409 IPC is serious, it is not of a nature that inherently threatens public safety or involves heinous violence. The Court emphasized that the complainant’s consent to the compromise is not a mere formality but a substantive indication of the resolution of the underlying grievance.
"This Court finds force with the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant, and further taking note of the fact that the parties have settled their dispute out of the Court, the complainant has no objection in allowing the application..."
The Court held that the pendency of other cases, without any specific averments or evidence of their nature or stage, cannot be a ground to deny bail in the present matter. The State’s opposition was deemed speculative and unsupported by material on record. The Court further observed that the BNSS, as a modernized criminal procedure code, explicitly encourages settlement mechanisms under Section 359, and courts must not treat such compromises as irrelevant to bail considerations.
The Court also noted that the applicant had been in custody for over five months, and the trial’s duration was likely to be prolonged. The Court reiterated that pre-trial detention must not be used as punishment and that the right to liberty must be preserved unless there is a clear risk of flight, tampering, or reoffending - none of which were established here.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The High Court allowed the bail application and directed the applicant’s release upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one solvent surety of the like amount, subject to conditions under Section 437(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The applicant must remain present before the trial court throughout the proceedings. The Court further directed that any violation of bail conditions may be addressed by the trial court through a cancellation application, to be decided in accordance with law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise Is a Legitimate Bail Consideration
- Practitioners may now cite Section 359 BNSS and judicial precedents like this one to argue that compromise in non-violent economic offences is a valid ground for bail, even if the offence is non-bailable.
- Affidavits of compromise and complainant consent must be filed promptly and formally to strengthen the bail plea.
Pendency of Other Cases Requires Specific Evidence
- General allegations of multiple pending cases are insufficient to deny bail; the prosecution must produce specific details - such as nature of offences, stage of proceedings, and nexus to the current case - to justify refusal.
- Courts will not accept speculative or vague opposition based on unproven allegations.
BNSS Reinforces Settlement Culture
- The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is not merely procedural but reflects a policy shift toward restorative justice.
- Lawyers should proactively explore compromise options in fraud, breach of trust, and other compoundable economic offences to secure early release and reduce prison overcrowding.
Bail Conditions Must Be Clear and Enforceable
- Courts will impose standard conditions under Section 437(3) CrPC, including regular appearance and non-interference with witnesses.
- Any breach must be reported to the trial court, not the High Court, for cancellation proceedings.
The Burden of Justifying Denial Rests on the State
- When a compromise exists and no concrete threat is shown, the burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate why liberty should be denied.
- Courts will not permit detention based on suspicion alone.
