Shelendra Tiwari @ Shelendra Kumar Tiwari vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Ors

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Shelendra Tiwari @ Shelendra Kumar Tiwari, in Case Crime No. 537 of 2019. The decision was based on the fact that the parties had entered into a compromise, the gravity of the accusations was considered, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and there was no possibility of him fleeing from justice. The Court explicitly stated that no opinion was being expressed on the merits of the case. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer. Conditions were imposed, including availability for interrogation, not inducing or threatening witnesses, and not leaving India without prior court permission, with passport deposit if applicable. The Investigating Officer was directed to conclude the investigation expeditiously, preferably within three months. The bail application was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Shelendra Tiwari @ Shelendra Kumar Tiwari in Case Crime No. 537 of 2019, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 53 of the Copyright Act at Police Station Firozabad South, District Firozabad. The applicant claims false implication and points to a compromise between the parties. The prosecution alleges that the applicant, after leaving the informant's company BKG Overseas, established his own company, BKG Glass International, and registered it under GST, which they contend was unlawful as it used a similar name to the informant's company. Several cases were filed between the parties, and a compromise has been reached.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 537 of 2019, considering the alleged offences and the fact that the parties have entered into a compromise. Contentions of the Applicant: The applicant argued that he has been falsely implicated, the parties have entered into a compromise, he is apprehending arrest, has no criminal history, and will cooperate with the investigation if released on anticipatory bail. Contentions of the Opposite Party (State and Informant): The State and informant opposed the bail, arguing that the applicant unlawfully established a company with a similar name to the informant's existing company and registered it under GST, which was against the provisions of law. They highlighted that several cases were filed against each other, and a compromise has been reached.