The Supreme Court in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab

State v. Saurabh Singh & others, arising out of Case Crime No. 60 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354(b) IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Prayagraj.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 02.07.2022 at 22:39 hours by opposite party no. 2 – Khushbu Singh against five named accused persons including the applicants under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354(b) IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, with the allegations the marriage of O.P. No. 2 was solemnized with Saurabh Singh on 27.06.2020 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Her brother had given dowry as per his capacity and capability, which included three lakh rupees in cash, jewelry of gold and silver and other household items. Her husband was habitual drinker. On 29.06.2020 she went to her Sasural after Vidaai from Jamshedpur, Tata Nagar, Jharkhand. The alleged accused persons raised an additional dowry demand of Rs. 2 Lakh. They mentally and physically tortured O.P. No. 2 for not coming with proper dowry. She was assaulted by all accused persons, in which she sustained injuries.

3.1 It has further been alleged that in October, 2021 the O.P. No. 2 was forced to leave the in-laws place and for the said reason she went along with her husband to live in a rented house at Bamrauli, Prayagraj. Husband of O.P. No. 2 did not come to the rented house for a number of days and she somehow managed to live with her child in a miserable condition. On 30.06.2022 at about 10:00 p.m. her husband, Dewar Shubham Singh alias Sheebu and father-in- law Sanjay Singh entered the house and started raising demand of dowry of Rs. 2 lakh. When she expressed her inability to fulfill the demand, they abused her and assaulted with legs and fists. On being objected by the O.P. No. 2, her dewar, who had bad eyes on her, pushed her on the ground, tore her blouse and molested her. Out of fear, due to occurrence of such incident O.P. No. 2 shouted loudly. Dewar snatched the gold chain from her neck and the accused persons threatened that in case two lakh rupees are not given, they will kill her and her child as well. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted on 29.07.2022 and the applicants have been summoned on 16.09.2022 under the relevant sections. Hence the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are family members of O.P. No. 2 and against them general, vague and omnibus allegations have been levelled in order to harass them. There are contradictions in the version of FIR, which has been lodged by O.P. No. 2 herself and the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that there is no specific allegation against the applicants except Shubham Singh (applicant no. 4). Drawing attention of the Court to the statements of landlady Smt. Nirmala and an independent witness Smt. Savita Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is no allegation against the applicants except that husband of O.P. No. 2 was habitual drinker. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed an affidavit, as given by the landlady, wherein the alleged incident as said to have occurred on 30.06.2022, has been denied.

5. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that from the version of FIR and the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there are specific allegations of abusing and assaulting the O.P. No. 2 by the applicants for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. There are specific allegations of molestation against Dewar of O.P. No. 2. From a perusal of the statements of witnesses it cannot be said that the offence under the relevant sections is not made out against the applicants. He has also raised objection stating that the husband has not appeared before this Court and is avoiding facing trial.

6. In the present case the charge-sheet against the applicants is of the year 2022. There is nothing on record to show that the applicants are not avoiding facing trial.

7. The record reflects that the applicants have deliberately avoided the process of law, therefore, they cannot be entitled to any relief from this Court in exercise of extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They have failed to substantiate before this Court in view of the reasoning stated hereinabove that due to personal difficulty they 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.

8. "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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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 court. 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.

12. Learned counsel for the applicants has not shown any fact and circumstance to demonstrate that applicants were not fleeing from process of law or evading justice.

13. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the concerned court below within four weeks from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773.

14. For the period of four weeks from today or till the disposal of bail application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, they do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action may be taken against them.

15. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 DS DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

State v. Saurabh Singh & others, arising out of Case Crime No. 60 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 354(b) IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Prayagraj.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a first information report was lodged on 02.07.2022 at 22:39 hours by opposite party no. 2 – Khushbu Singh against five named accused persons including the applicants under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354(b) IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, with the allegations the marriage of O.P. No. 2 was solemnized with Saurabh Singh on 27.06.2020 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Her brother had given dowry as per his capacity and capability, which included three lakh rupees in cash, jewelry of gold and silver and other household items. Her husband was habitual drinker. On 29.06.2020 she went to her Sasural after Vidaai from Jamshedpur, Tata Nagar, Jharkhand. The alleged accused persons raised an additional dowry demand of Rs. 2 Lakh. They mentally and physically tortured O.P. No. 2 for not coming with proper dowry. She was assaulted by all accused persons, in which she sustained injuries.

3.1 It has further been alleged that in October, 2021 the O.P. No. 2 was forced to leave the in-laws place and for the said reason she went along with her husband to live in a rented house at Bamrauli, Prayagraj. Husband of O.P. No. 2 did not come to the rented house for a number of days and she somehow managed to live with her child in a miserable condition. On 30.06.2022 at about 10:00 p.m. her husband, Dewar Shubham Singh alias Sheebu and father-in- law Sanjay Singh entered the house and started raising demand of dowry of Rs. 2 lakh. When she expressed her inability to fulfill the demand, they abused her and assaulted with legs and fists. On being objected by the O.P. No. 2, her dewar, who had bad eyes on her, pushed her on the ground, tore her blouse and molested her. Out of fear, due to occurrence of such incident O.P. No. 2 shouted loudly. Dewar snatched the gold chain from her neck and the accused persons threatened that in case two lakh rupees are not given, they will kill her and her child as well. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted on 29.07.2022 and the applicants have been summoned on 16.09.2022 under the relevant sections. Hence the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are family members of O.P. No. 2 and against them general, vague and omnibus allegations have been levelled in order to harass them. There are contradictions in the version of FIR, which has been lodged by O.P. No. 2 herself and the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that there is no specific allegation against the applicants except Shubham Singh (applicant no. 4). Drawing attention of the Court to the statements of landlady Smt. Nirmala and an independent witness Smt. Savita Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is no allegation against the applicants except that husband of O.P. No. 2 was habitual drinker. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed an affidavit, as given by the landlady, wherein the alleged incident as said to have occurred on 30.06.2022, has been denied.

5. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that from the version of FIR and the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there are specific allegations of abusing and assaulting the O.P. No. 2 by the applicants for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. There are specific allegations of molestation against Dewar of O.P. No. 2. From a perusal of the statements of witnesses it cannot be said that the offence under the relevant sections is not made out against the applicants. He has also raised objection stating that the husband has not appeared before this Court and is avoiding facing trial.

6. In the present case the charge-sheet against the applicants is of the year 2022. There is nothing on record to show that the applicants are not avoiding facing trial.

7. The record reflects that the applicants have deliberately avoided the process of law, therefore, they cannot be entitled to any relief from this Court in exercise of extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They have failed to substantiate before this Court in view of the reasoning stated hereinabove that due to personal difficulty they 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.

8. "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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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 court. 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.

12. Learned counsel for the applicants has not shown any fact and circumstance to demonstrate that applicants were not fleeing from process of law or evading justice.

13. However, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the concerned court below within four weeks from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view the guidelines as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773.

14. For the period of four weeks from today or till the disposal of bail application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. However, in case, they do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action may be taken against them.

15. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 DS DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad