Awadhesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another). Aforementioned application was disposed of finally by

1. Heard Mr. Kamlesh Prasad, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that due to inadvertence, the date of the impugned order has wrongly been transcribed as 23.07.2021 in the prayer clause of this application, whereas, the correct date is 17.08.2021. He, therefore, seeks permission of the Court to correct the same.

4. Prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant is bona-fide. Same is not opposed by the learned A.G.A.

5. Accordingly, it is allowed.

6. Let necessary correction/amendment in the prayer clause of this application be carried out by the learned counsel for applicant during course of the day.

7. Applicant-Awadhesh Kumar, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned non bailable warrant dated 17.08.2021 issued by the learned Additional District Judge/F.T.C.-I, Allahabad in pending Sessions Trial No. 938 of 2012 (State Vs. Awadhesh Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 270 of 2010, Under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Police Station-Karchhana, District-Allahabad. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court to stay/kept in abeyance entire further proceedings in respect of the impugned non bailable warrant dated 17.08.2021 in pending Sessions Trial No. 938 of 2012 (State Vs. Awadhesh Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 270 of 2010, Under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Police Station-Karchhana, District-Allahabad during the pendency of instant Criminal Misc. Application before this Hon'ble Court. And/or may pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

8. It transpires from the record that applicant was enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. However, applicant absconded himself from the proceedings of trial. Accordingly, non bailable warrant was issued against applicant.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the same, applicant approached this Court by means of an Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 30235 of 2019 (Awadhesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Another). Aforementioned application was disposed of finally by this Court, vide order dated 05.08.2019. For ready reference, the order dated 053.08.2019 is reproduced herein below:- "Heard Sri Iftakhar Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 938 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 270 of 2010, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, P.S. Karchana, District Allahabad as well as non bailable warrant dated 1.2.2018. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated by Opposite Party no. 2, who is father of the victim. The victim has already married the accused-applicant and they have children also. He has further argued that this is nothing but an abuse of process of court and malicious prosecution of the accused-applicant. It is also argued that during the trial of the accused, on 1.2.2018 non bailable warrant has been issued as he could not attend the court as he had gone in order to earn livelihood, hence, non bailable warrant needs to be quashed. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing and has argued that charge-sheet has already been submitted and case is due for trial and during trial, to secure the presence of the accused-applicant, non bailable warrant has been issued which is rightly issued as he could not appear before the trial court. I have perused certified copy of the order sheet of the trial court which indicates that he could not appear on the date fixed because he had gone for earning his livelihood, hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order of issuance of N.B.W. by the trial court because the same has been issued for securing his presence by the trial court. Accordingly, quashing of the N.B.W. as well as entire proceedings is refused. However, it is directed that, in case, if the accused-applicant appears before the court below within 30 days and seeks cancellation of non-bailable warrant, the same would be disposed of in accordance with law. In case, the same is rejected and bail application is moved, the trial may court consider granting bail in accordance with law to him but if he does not appear before the court below within that period, the court shall be at liberty to adopt coercive steps to secure his presence. With the aforesaid direction, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of."

10. Thereafter, the applicant participated in the proceeding of trial till 12.04.2021 but again absconded from the proceedings of trial. Resultantly, non bailable warrant was issued against applicant by Court below on 17.08.2021.

11. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that applicant is a habitual defaulter. Furthermore, a period of more than 3 years and 5 months has rolled by from the date or order dated 17.08.2021 but applicant has not yet appeared before Court below. On account of non co- operative conduct of applicant, the trial has remained held up for more than 3 years and 5 months. As such, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of present applicant.

12. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record and considering the fact that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are clearly borne out from the record. Furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

14. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

15. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Vinay

1. Heard Mr. Kamlesh Prasad, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant submits that due to inadvertence, the date of the impugned order has wrongly been transcribed as 23.07.2021 in the prayer clause of this application, whereas, the correct date is 17.08.2021. He, therefore, seeks permission of the Court to correct the same.

4. Prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant is bona-fide. Same is not opposed by the learned A.G.A.

5. Accordingly, it is allowed.

6. Let necessary correction/amendment in the prayer clause of this application be carried out by the learned counsel for applicant during course of the day.

7. Applicant-Awadhesh Kumar, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned non bailable warrant dated 17.08.2021 issued by the learned Additional District Judge/F.T.C.-I, Allahabad in pending Sessions Trial No. 938 of 2012 (State Vs. Awadhesh Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 270 of 2010, Under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Police Station-Karchhana, District-Allahabad. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court to stay/kept in abeyance entire further proceedings in respect of the impugned non bailable warrant dated 17.08.2021 in pending Sessions Trial No. 938 of 2012 (State Vs. Awadhesh Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 270 of 2010, Under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, Police Station-Karchhana, District-Allahabad during the pendency of instant Criminal Misc. Application before this Hon'ble Court. And/or may pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

8. It transpires from the record that applicant was enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. However, applicant absconded himself from the proceedings of trial. Accordingly, non bailable warrant was issued against applicant.

9. Feeling aggrieved by the same, applicant approached this Court by means of an Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 30235 of 2019 (Awadhesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Another). Aforementioned application was disposed of finally by this Court, vide order dated 05.08.2019. For ready reference, the order dated 053.08.2019 is reproduced herein below:- "Heard Sri Iftakhar Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. The present application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 938 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 270 of 2010, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC, P.S. Karchana, District Allahabad as well as non bailable warrant dated 1.2.2018. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated by Opposite Party no. 2, who is father of the victim. The victim has already married the accused-applicant and they have children also. He has further argued that this is nothing but an abuse of process of court and malicious prosecution of the accused-applicant. It is also argued that during the trial of the accused, on 1.2.2018 non bailable warrant has been issued as he could not attend the court as he had gone in order to earn livelihood, hence, non bailable warrant needs to be quashed. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of quashing and has argued that charge-sheet has already been submitted and case is due for trial and during trial, to secure the presence of the accused-applicant, non bailable warrant has been issued which is rightly issued as he could not appear before the trial court. I have perused certified copy of the order sheet of the trial court which indicates that he could not appear on the date fixed because he had gone for earning his livelihood, hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order of issuance of N.B.W. by the trial court because the same has been issued for securing his presence by the trial court. Accordingly, quashing of the N.B.W. as well as entire proceedings is refused. However, it is directed that, in case, if the accused-applicant appears before the court below within 30 days and seeks cancellation of non-bailable warrant, the same would be disposed of in accordance with law. In case, the same is rejected and bail application is moved, the trial may court consider granting bail in accordance with law to him but if he does not appear before the court below within that period, the court shall be at liberty to adopt coercive steps to secure his presence. With the aforesaid direction, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of."

10. Thereafter, the applicant participated in the proceeding of trial till 12.04.2021 but again absconded from the proceedings of trial. Resultantly, non bailable warrant was issued against applicant by Court below on 17.08.2021.

11. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that applicant is a habitual defaulter. Furthermore, a period of more than 3 years and 5 months has rolled by from the date or order dated 17.08.2021 but applicant has not yet appeared before Court below. On account of non co- operative conduct of applicant, the trial has remained held up for more than 3 years and 5 months. As such, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of present applicant.

12. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record and considering the fact that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are clearly borne out from the record. Furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

14. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

15. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Vinay