Allahabad High Court
Satendra Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 9 May, 2022
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1371 of 2022
Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Mishra,Saurabh Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed with the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously be pleased to allow the application and to grant the applicant Anticipatory bail in connection with complaint case number 1939 of 2013 under Sections 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Murainipur, District Jhansi, till the completion of the trial before the court below."
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that although the applicant had filed an application for discharge before the trial court on 01.04.2016 which was dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2019 but looking to the merits of the matter it would be apparent that no case whatsoever was made against the applicant. It is argued that the delay in approaching the Court is well explained and there was no intentionally delay on the part of the applicant. It is further argued that the proceedings before the Court below are without jurisdiction and non bailable warrants have been issued on 14.11.2019 in a casual manner without actually serving him with a fresh summoning order. Para 21 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is further argued that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. It is argued while placing para 23 of the affidavit that the said offences are punishable with imprisonment of seven years in the case of Satinder Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another : (SLP) Crl. No. 5191 of 2021 it has been held that non bailable warrants may be cancelled or converted into a bailable warrant or summons without insisting on the physical appearance of the accused if such an application is moved by him or an undertaking is given to appear physically on the next date of hearing. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para 27 of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application.
Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the first informant vehemently opposed for anticipatory bail and argued that in the present case, a complaint was filed in the year 2013 on which cognizance was taken and the applicant was summoned vide order dated 04.02.2015 by the trial court. It is argued that subsequently he filed a discharge application on 01.04.2016 which came to be rejected for non prosecution on 05.04.2019 and non bailable warrants were issued but still then the applicant continued to abscond. It is argued that abscondence of the applicant is enormous and there is no plausible explanation regarding the same. It is further argued that since the proceedings has started against him he absconded intentionally. It was his duty to honour the summons issued against him but he failed to do so on the pretext of filing of the discharge application and had continued to get the matter adjourned till 2019.
After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the complaint was filed on 11.03.2013. The applicant was summoned vide order dated 04.02.2015 after which a discharge application was filed by him on 01.04.2016 which was came to be dismissed for non prosecution on 05.04.2019. The applicant filed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge which was rejected and then has approached this Court. There is delay of the applicant in pursuing the matter after non bailable warrants were issued. The matter has been pending since 2013. The applicant appears to have avoided and evaded the process of law which would also be evident from the fact that he filed a discharge application before the trial court which was dismissed for non prosecution. Even after the dismissal of the discharge application for non prosecution he continued to evade the process of law and did not cooperate with the trial court. He filed an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Judge concerned in December 2021 which was rejected and then has approached this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. In so far as the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Satinder Kumar Antil (supra) is concerned even he has not cared to file an application before the trial court giving his assurance to appear physically before the said court which would have then been considered in the light of the settled principles of law. The judgment thus does not render any help to him. There has been a long period of abscondence by the applicant which does not appear to be bonafide. I do not find it a fit case for interference.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 9.5.2022
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
