High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:153301 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9297 of 2024 Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant - Mukesh Kumar in Complaint Case No. 4828 of 2011 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station - Sarsawa, District - Saharanpur. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that summoning order was passed against the applicant in a complaint case on 16.11.2013. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that summoning order was challenged in a revisional jurisdiction and on 2.3.2020 summoning order was upheld and the revision was rejected. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in the meantime co-accused has filed application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court and by order dated 24.1.2017 passed in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 39554 of 2016, which is at page no. 54 of the paper book, further proceedings had been stayed only in respect of Raj Kumar Lekhpal. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that after the rejection of the criminal revision and since proceedings were stayed by this Court in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the co-accused, the applicant did not appear before the court concerned. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further argued that applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No prima facie case is made out against the applicant. If the applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the investigation. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer. 5. In the instant case applicant was summoned in the year 2013 and the criminal revision was rejected in the year 2020. Despite rejection of the criminal revision, applicant did not take steps to appear before the court concerned. The only explanation offered by learned counsel for the applicant is to the order dated 24.1.2017 of the co-accused Raj Kumar Lekhpal passed in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 39554 of 2016 where proceedings of the complaint case was stayed only in respect of the Raj Kumar Lekhpal. There was no stay order in respect of the appearance of the applicant. The applicant is fleeing from justice. 6. It is to be seen that in the present case applicant has been summoned in the year 2013. However, the applicant has not appeared before the court concerned in pursuance to the aforesaid summoning order. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non-appearance of the applicant and as such the applicant is fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause. 7. "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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. In the present case, the summons/non-bailable warrant has been served on the applicant in the year 2013, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the applicant for non-appearance of the applicant before the court concerned in pursuance to summons/warrant issued by the court concerned. The only explanation offered is to the effect that in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the co-accused, proceedings against the co- accused were stayed. There was no stay of the proceedings against the applicant. The applicant has failed to appear before the court concerned despite summoning order. Learned counsel for the applicant has not shown any facts and circumstances to demonstrate that applicant was not fleeing from process of law or evading justice. In the facts and circumstances the applicant is 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. 12. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicant has no respect for the summons of the court and has remained absent from the court proceedings for a period of about 10 years which is indicative of the fact that the applicant is fleeing from the process of law and as such the present anticipatory bail application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 20.9.2024 VMA