Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 988 (ALL)

Shashi Kapoor v. State of U. P.

2023-04-11

JYOTSNA SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants-Shashi Kapoor and Anil seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No.4740 of 2017, under sections-380, 457 I.P.C., Police Station-Malpura, District-Agra. 3. The applicants are wanted in a Complaint Case No.4740 of 2017, under sections-380, 457 I.P.C. filed on the basis of application moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the allegations that due to previous enmity generated on account of an F.I.R. filed over an incident that happened on 25.07.2017 (in which the applicants attacked and caused injuries to complainant's son); a few days thereafter, i.e., on 12.08.2017, they broke open the lock of her house and stole jewellery and other articles from her house. 4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that whole of the complainant's story is false and they have been implicated in this case out of enmity generated over filing an F.I.R. (Case Crime No.416 of 2017) from the side of applicant no.1 against the sons of the first informant/complainant. There is no truth in the allegations; they are innocent and have been summoned on the basis of one sided statements of pocket witnesses of the complainant. 5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by the learned A.G.A., however the material facts as alleged by the applicants could not be rebutted. 6. In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration. 7. In the instant case, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 8. 7. In the instant case, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out. 8. Let the applicants-Shashi Kapoor and Anil involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:- (i) that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants. 10. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way influence the learned trial court in forming his independent opinion, on the basis of material before him, at any stage of the case.