Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Shri Ankit Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Imran Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application u/S 528 BNSS has been filed seeking quashing the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Session/Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) (V.B.U.P.S.E.B.), Meerut, in CC No. 59/977 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2024, under Section 12 The Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Meerut, pending before the learned Additional Session/Special Judge Anti-Corruption (V.B.U.P.S.E.B.), Meerut and may kindly allow the application bearing paper no. 11 (B) dated 25.08.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is accused in a criminal case and during investigation he fully cooperated with the investigation and without his arrest the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet and after submission of charge sheet when applicant made a prayer before the trial court to accept his personal bond in light of the judgment passed by this court in case of Smt. Bacchi Devi vs. State of U.P. and another 2025:AHC:136034, then court concerned vide impugned order dated 09.10.2025 rejected his application.

4. He next submits that the impugned order is illegal and is against the law laid down by this Court in case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra). He further submits that this Court in case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) in paragraph 38 categorically directed that all the District Judges shall 2 NA528 No. 42119 of 2025 ensure that in cases where the charge sheet has been filed without arrest whether because custodial interrogation was not effected during investigation by the Investigating Officer or the accused has secured anticipatory bail/protective orders under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 528 of BNSS and duly cooperated during investigation, the trial court shall not remand the accused to judicial custody upon appearance pursuant to the summon nor insist upon filing of regular bail or anticipatory bail application and accused shall be permitted to appear and furnish a personal bond but in spite of that court concerned rejected the prayer made by applicant to accept his personal bond.

5. He next submits that however in the present matter after summons applicant could not appear before the trial court and therefore warrants have been issued against him and even process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have also been issued against him but this fact does not dilute the dictum of this Court given in case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra). He further submits as applicant after appearing before the court concerned made specific prayer to accept his personal bond in light of the law laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) therefore the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the court concerned is illegal and this order is in the teeth of the order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra).

6. He further submits that even in paragraph no. 24 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant application, applicant has given an undertaking that he shall fully cooperate with the trial court and he shall not without sufficient cause will seek any unnecessary adjournment at any stage of the trial.

7. He next submits that therefore considering the above facts the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 is liable to be set aside and applicant may be permitted to remain on personal bond during trial.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that it is a classic case in which an accused tried to misuse the provisions of law. He further submits that no doubt during investigation Investigating Officer did not propose the arrest of applicant and without 3 NA528 No. 42119 of 2025 his arrest charge sheet has been filed, but after the charge sheet when summons were issued, then applicant did not appear and thereafter warrants were issued against him and in spite of that he did not appear and therefore court concerned had to issue process against applicant under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and thereafter he filed application to furnish personal bond therefore applicant prima facie appears to be an absconder.

9. He further submits that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) is not applicable to an absconder. He further submits that if applicant would have been appeared before the trial court before the issuance of warrants then the observation made by this Court in the case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) would be applicable therefore, under the pretext of direction issued by this Court in case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) no benefit should be extended to the applicant who prima facie appears to be an absconder. He next submits that there is no illegality in the order dated 09.10.2025.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. It reflects that by way of this application, applicant challenges the order dated 9.10.2025, passed by the court concerned in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) by which his application for acceptance of bail bonds has been dismissed.

12. From the record, it appears that however during investigation applicant was not arrested and charge sheet has been filed against him without arrest but it appears when summons were issued applicant failed to appear and thereafter the court issued bailable and non-bailable warrants against him and ultimately the court issued process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. therefore prima facie it reflects applicant is an absconder and he tried to evade the judicial processes issued against him. It also reflects, applicant neither challenged the warrants nor the process issued under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and it reflects only after the issuance of process under Section 83 Cr.P.C applicant moved an application before the court concerned with prayer to accept his personal bond in view of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) but his application has been 4 NA528 No. 42119 of 2025 dismissed.

13. This court finds no illegality in the order passed by the court concerned. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned A.G.A. that the observation made by this court in Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) is not applicable to an absconder. Law is settled that a person who is willing to follow the law can be protected. If the contention raised by applicant is accepted then it would render provisions of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. redundant. This Court cannot either interpret any provision of law or the order in the manner that makes statutory provisions redundant.

14. Further, considering the facts and circumstances, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned A.G.A. that it is a classic case where an accused is trying to twist the provisions of law to defeat the very purpose of statutory provision under the pretext of the direction given by this Court, which cannot be permitted.

15. In view of the above,the instant application u/S 528 BNSS is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 29, 2025 Anurag/- (Sameer Jain,J.)

1. Heard Shri Ankit Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Imran Khan, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The instant application u/S 528 BNSS has been filed seeking quashing the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Session/Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) (V.B.U.P.S.E.B.), Meerut, in CC No. 59/977 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2024, under Section 12 The Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Meerut, pending before the learned Additional Session/Special Judge Anti-Corruption (V.B.U.P.S.E.B.), Meerut and may kindly allow the application bearing paper no. 11 (B) dated 25.08.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is accused in a criminal case and during investigation he fully cooperated with the investigation and without his arrest the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet and after submission of charge sheet when applicant made a prayer before the trial court to accept his personal bond in light of the judgment passed by this court in case of Smt. Bacchi Devi vs. State of U.P. and another 2025:AHC:136034, then court concerned vide impugned order dated 09.10.2025 rejected his application.

4. He next submits that the impugned order is illegal and is against the law laid down by this Court in case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra). He further submits that this Court in case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) in paragraph 38 categorically directed that all the District Judges shall 2 NA528 No. 42119 of 2025 ensure that in cases where the charge sheet has been filed without arrest whether because custodial interrogation was not effected during investigation by the Investigating Officer or the accused has secured anticipatory bail/protective orders under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section 528 of BNSS and duly cooperated during investigation, the trial court shall not remand the accused to judicial custody upon appearance pursuant to the summon nor insist upon filing of regular bail or anticipatory bail application and accused shall be permitted to appear and furnish a personal bond but in spite of that court concerned rejected the prayer made by applicant to accept his personal bond.

5. He next submits that however in the present matter after summons applicant could not appear before the trial court and therefore warrants have been issued against him and even process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have also been issued against him but this fact does not dilute the dictum of this Court given in case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra). He further submits as applicant after appearing before the court concerned made specific prayer to accept his personal bond in light of the law laid down by this court in the case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) therefore the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the court concerned is illegal and this order is in the teeth of the order passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra).

6. He further submits that even in paragraph no. 24 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant application, applicant has given an undertaking that he shall fully cooperate with the trial court and he shall not without sufficient cause will seek any unnecessary adjournment at any stage of the trial.

7. He next submits that therefore considering the above facts the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 is liable to be set aside and applicant may be permitted to remain on personal bond during trial.

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that it is a classic case in which an accused tried to misuse the provisions of law. He further submits that no doubt during investigation Investigating Officer did not propose the arrest of applicant and without 3 NA528 No. 42119 of 2025 his arrest charge sheet has been filed, but after the charge sheet when summons were issued, then applicant did not appear and thereafter warrants were issued against him and in spite of that he did not appear and therefore court concerned had to issue process against applicant under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and thereafter he filed application to furnish personal bond therefore applicant prima facie appears to be an absconder.

9. He further submits that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) is not applicable to an absconder. He further submits that if applicant would have been appeared before the trial court before the issuance of warrants then the observation made by this Court in the case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) would be applicable therefore, under the pretext of direction issued by this Court in case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) no benefit should be extended to the applicant who prima facie appears to be an absconder. He next submits that there is no illegality in the order dated 09.10.2025.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

11. It reflects that by way of this application, applicant challenges the order dated 9.10.2025, passed by the court concerned in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in case of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) by which his application for acceptance of bail bonds has been dismissed.

12. From the record, it appears that however during investigation applicant was not arrested and charge sheet has been filed against him without arrest but it appears when summons were issued applicant failed to appear and thereafter the court issued bailable and non-bailable warrants against him and ultimately the court issued process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. therefore prima facie it reflects applicant is an absconder and he tried to evade the judicial processes issued against him. It also reflects, applicant neither challenged the warrants nor the process issued under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and it reflects only after the issuance of process under Section 83 Cr.P.C applicant moved an application before the court concerned with prayer to accept his personal bond in view of Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) but his application has been 4 NA528 No. 42119 of 2025 dismissed.

13. This court finds no illegality in the order passed by the court concerned. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned A.G.A. that the observation made by this court in Smt. Bacchi Devi (supra) is not applicable to an absconder. Law is settled that a person who is willing to follow the law can be protected. If the contention raised by applicant is accepted then it would render provisions of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. redundant. This Court cannot either interpret any provision of law or the order in the manner that makes statutory provisions redundant.

14. Further, considering the facts and circumstances, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned A.G.A. that it is a classic case where an accused is trying to twist the provisions of law to defeat the very purpose of statutory provision under the pretext of the direction given by this Court, which cannot be permitted.

15. In view of the above,the instant application u/S 528 BNSS is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 29, 2025 Anurag/- (Sameer Jain,J.)