High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:148049 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9008 of 2024 Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harindra Prasad,Ram Narain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA and perused the material available on record. 2. The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants - Mukesh Kumar and Renu Alias Amit Kumar in Case No. 2207 of 2007 (State Vs. Mahavir and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 224 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 336, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Tundla, District - Firozabad. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the present case summoning order was passed against the applicants on 16.8.2007 and the same was challenged before this Court by means of application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which was however rejected in the year 2008. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further argued that applicants' case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No prima facie case is made out against the applicants. If the applicants are enlarged on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the investigation. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest by the police any time. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer. 4-A. On a specific pointed query being made to learned counsel for the applicants that as to why the applicants are not appearing before the court concerned, learned counsel for the applicants have not offered any explanation. The applicants are fleeing from the process of law. 5. It is to be seen that in the present case applicants have been summoned in the year 2007. However, the applicants have not appeared before the court concerned in pursuance to the aforesaid summoning order. The applicants have failed to substantiate before this Court in view of the reasoning stated hereinabove that the summons have not been served on the applicants. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non appearance of the applicants and as such the applicants are fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause. 6. "Fleeing from justice" refers to the act of accused in evading or avoiding arrest, prosecution, or punishment for a crime. An accused in aforesaid act tries to avoid facing criminal prosecution by often avoiding summons, warrants and other process issued by the court. An accused is legally bound to comply with the summons issued by the court of law except where the process is challenged before the higher forum by the accused. Any person who has been issued process by court of law cannot be permitted to evade the same thereby not permitting the court of law to proceed in the administration of justice. The said act of accused in avoiding the process of court of law without any justification effects the very cause of justice. An accused fleeing from justice without reasonable cause has the effect of stopping/slowing the criminal process of law which effects the cause of speedy justice to the victim or society at large. Non appearance of an accused before the court concerned when the summons has been served (without reasonable explanation for non-appearance) may be indicative of the fact that such accused do not have respect to the process of law. 7. It is important for rule of law to prevail that the criminal trial is completed without delay. Where an accused flees from the process of law and thereby avoids appearing before the court, the very concept of speedy trial is put at peril and justice to the victim is delayed. 8. The Supreme Court in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC 518 has observed that while granting bail, especially anticipatory bail which is per se extraordinary in nature, the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased, fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in the fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked. 9. While considering the question of whether an accused is fleeing from justice, the conduct of the accused in respect of the process of law is required to be considered. In criminal prosecution when the court find material against the accused sufficient for prosecution, the court issues summons or warrants for appearance to the accused for participation in the trial. When the summons or warrants are served on the accused in accordance with law then duty is cast on the accused to appear before the court concerned except where there exists justification for non-appearance of the accused. An accused who is served with the process of court and fails to appear before the court concerned without any reasonable cause can be said to be fleeing from the process of law. 10. In the present case, the summons/order has been served on the applicants in the year 2007, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the applicants for non-appearance of the applicants before the court concerned in pursuance to summons/order issued by the court concerned. Learned counsel for the applicants has not shown any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that applicants were not fleeing from process of law or evading justice. In the facts and circumstances the applicants are fleeing from the process of law and evading justice, as such does not deserve anticipatory bail in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. 11. The question of service of the summons is a question of facts which has to be specifically pleaded by the applicants. The applicants have failed to substantiate the non service of the summons and as such the aforesaid plea is not tenable. 12. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicants have no respect for the summons of the court and has remained absent from the court proceedings for a period of about 15 years which is indicative of the fact that the applicants are fleeing from the process of law and as such the present anticipatory bail application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 11.9.2024 VMA