High Court

No.416 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.10 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gulhariya, Gorakhpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.1, Gorakhpur.

4. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that charge-sheet in the present matter has been submitted on

01.03.2019, wherein learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on

02.02.2022. He further submits that proceedings under Section 82 and 83 have also been initiated against the applicant. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show that applicants are not avoiding facing trial and are not entitled to any relief from this Court. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35, it is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that in the absence of above, the challenge laid to the charge sheet cannot be examined by this Court.

5. Answering the said objection, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Allegations levelled against the applicant regarding dowry and harassment are false. He further submits that charge sheet has been submitted in the year 2019 and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the applicants on 02.02.2022. He further submits that the applicant was in Banglore and had no knowledge about the summons as initially his arrest was stayed, therefore, he was not aware about the continuance of proceedings against him. Emphasizing upon the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. he submits that the name of the applicant has not surfaced in the statement of the victim. He next submits that co-accused is already facing trial. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that some time may be granted to the applicant to surrender/appear before the Court concerned.

6. It is to be seen that in the present case the charge-sheet has been submitted in the year 2019 and applicant has been summoned on

02.02.2022. The applicant has failed to substantiate before this Court in view of the reasoning stated hereinabove that due to personal difficulty he could not appear before the Court concerned. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non appearance of the applicants and as such they are 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, the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses, 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 before 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 charge-sheet in the matter in the year 2019 and summons has been served on the applicant on

02.02.2022, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the learned counsel for the applicant for non-appearance of the applicant before the court concerned in pursuance to summons/warrant 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 any protection in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. It is to be seen that the applicant is avoiding the court proceedings since 2022.

12. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicant has no respect for the court proceedings 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. Therefore, prayer in respect of applicant is refused and the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Abhishek Singh

No.416 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.10 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Gulhariya, Gorakhpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.1, Gorakhpur.

4. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that charge-sheet in the present matter has been submitted on

01.03.2019, wherein learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on

02.02.2022. He further submits that proceedings under Section 82 and 83 have also been initiated against the applicant. He further submits that there is nothing on record to show that applicants are not avoiding facing trial and are not entitled to any relief from this Court. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Kaptan Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35, it is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that in the absence of above, the challenge laid to the charge sheet cannot be examined by this Court.

5. Answering the said objection, learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Allegations levelled against the applicant regarding dowry and harassment are false. He further submits that charge sheet has been submitted in the year 2019 and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the applicants on 02.02.2022. He further submits that the applicant was in Banglore and had no knowledge about the summons as initially his arrest was stayed, therefore, he was not aware about the continuance of proceedings against him. Emphasizing upon the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. he submits that the name of the applicant has not surfaced in the statement of the victim. He next submits that co-accused is already facing trial. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that some time may be granted to the applicant to surrender/appear before the Court concerned.

6. It is to be seen that in the present case the charge-sheet has been submitted in the year 2019 and applicant has been summoned on

02.02.2022. The applicant has failed to substantiate before this Court in view of the reasoning stated hereinabove that due to personal difficulty he could not appear before the Court concerned. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non appearance of the applicants and as such they are 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, the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses, 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 before 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 charge-sheet in the matter in the year 2019 and summons has been served on the applicant on

02.02.2022, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the learned counsel for the applicant for non-appearance of the applicant before the court concerned in pursuance to summons/warrant 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 any protection in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. It is to be seen that the applicant is avoiding the court proceedings since 2022.

12. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicant has no respect for the court proceedings 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. Therefore, prayer in respect of applicant is refused and the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Abhishek Singh