JUDGMENT : MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. 1. This instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged an FIR No. 463/2014 at P.S. Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur for the offence under sections 120B, 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. During the course of investigation the accused petitioners was/were arrested. Thereafter, he/she/they moved bail application before the trial court, which was dismissed. Against the said order, the accused petitioners has/have preferred instant bail application before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that that the accused petitioner has paid the entire amount to the complainant and after that they have entered into a compromise. Counsel has submitted that he has enclosed the copy of the compromise dated 13.4.2017 with the bail application as Annex.3. Counsel has further submitted that the accused petitioner is in judicial custody since long and no purpose will be served in keeping him behind the Bar. Trial of the case is likely to take considerable time, hence the accused petitioner be released on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the instant bail application. 5. A bare perusal of the order dated 17.4.2017 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 19, Sanganer, Jaipur Metropolitan as also the compromise dated 13.4.2017 (Annex.3), it is crystal clear that the complainant party and the accused petitioner both have entered into a compromise despite that the learned trial court dismissed the bail application of the accused petitioner without assigning any cogent reason. The court while deciding the bail applications in the matters where both the parties have entered into a compromise shall take a lenient view and until and unless there are no serious allegations shall grant bail to the accused persons on the basis of compromise, which has not been done in the present case. However, allowing and rejecting the bail application of the accused persons is discretion of the Presiding Officer but the Presiding Officer should exercise the discretion in judicious manner so that the Courts may not be burdened by unnecessarily litigation. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to release the accused petitioners on bail. 7. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to release the accused petitioners on bail. 7. Therefore, the instant bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused petitioners; Manish Gautam S/o Ramswroop Gautam in connection with the aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, provided he/she/they furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation that he/she/they shall appear before that court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. The Dy. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Presiding Officer through a Special Messenger for information and necessary compliance.