Allahabad High Court
Anand Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 20 October, 2022
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9626 of 2022
Applicant :- Anand Sharma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Rai,Devid Kumar Singh,Prateek Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anubhav Sinha
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Prateek Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dev Kaushik, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel for the informant and Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.1269 of 2013, registered under Sections 498A, 323, 315, 504 & 506 IPC at Police Station- Mahila Thana Sector 20 Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
Admittedly, the present matter is of family discord and the applicant, who happens to be the husband of the informant, is stated to have subjected her to cruelty for demand of dowry and there are other allegations regarding miscarriage of pregnancy of the informant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. A compromise was entered between the parties after the mediation proceedings, which is annexed to the anticipatory bail application. Learned counsel has further stated that after the said amicable solution at the mediation proceedings, they had started living happily together and the same continued to the year 2021, but later on, after some discord between the parties, the informant had again departed from the house of the applicant and has started living separately. Learned counsel has further stated that the present case is a certain miscarriage of justice and misuse of process of law as after the compromise entered between the parties, the informant had withdrawn her case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under Guardianship and Wards Act and the orders have been annexed as annexure nos.13 and 14 of the affidavit accompanying the anticipatory bail application. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. Much water has been flown down the Thames and this case was challenged by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the proceedings were stayed, which is annexed as annexure no.11 to the anticipatory bail application. The said order itself indicates of the compromise having been entered between the parties, although in the meantime, the said discord started over again. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the applicant is the husband of the informant and is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Although, they could not dispute the fact that there are no criminal antecedents of the applicant.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Anand Sharma be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-
1. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. that the applicant 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;
3. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
4. that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
5. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
6. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
7. that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.
Order Date :- 20.10.2022
Ravi Kant
