High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:155698 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9456 of 2024 Applicant :- Dilshad @ Kalu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that 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. Applicant has no previous criminal history. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer. 5. It is admitted case of the applicant that in the year 2021, summoning order has been issued against applicant. 6. On a pointed query being made to learned counsel for the applicant as to why applicant has not appeared before the court concerned, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was ill and in this respect, he has relied upon the medical document, which is at page 42 of the paper book, which is of the year 2022. Learned counsel for the applicant has further filed certificate of the doctor that applicant is unable to execute and travel from 10.9.2024 to 10.10.2024 and has been advised bed rest. 7. It is to be seen that in the present case, applicant is avoiding court proceeding despite issuance of summoning order in the year 2021. The ground raised by applicant in the present case that the applicant is at bed rest. The difficulty is temporary in nature. Certificate of the doctor at page 5 of the supplementary affidavit. Applicant is not permanently disabled as per certificate. Summoning order was issued in the year 2021. However, it has not been demonstrated that applicant is permanently incapacitated to appear before the court concerned. 8. It is to be seen that in the present case the applicant has been summoned in the year 2021. However, the applicant has not appeared before the court concerned in pursuance to the aforesaid summoning order. The applicant has failed to substantiate before this Court in view of the reasoning stated hereinabove that the summons have not been served on the applicant. 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. 9. "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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. In the present case, the summons has been served on the applicant in the year 2021, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the applicant for non-appearance of the applicant before the court concerned in pursuance to summons issued by the court concerned. 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. 14. 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 three 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. 15. Since the applicant claims physical disability, which is required to be examined by the court concerned and in the event applicant, prefers application under Section 88 Cr.P.C., the same shall be considered by the court concerned and in the event, applicant is found to be incapacitated then the benefit of the aforesaid provision shall be extended in accordance with law. Order Date :- 24.9.2024 D. Tamang
Arguments
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 - Dilshad @ Kalu in Case Crime No. 179 of 2020, under Sections 379, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Gangoh, District - Saharanpur.