Dismissed

Smt. Shweta Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2024ABAIL/7084/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought anticipatory bail, having failed to appear before the trial court for six years after summons were issued. The Court held that the unexplained absence constituted fleeing from the process of law and denied the application.

What did the court decide?

null

What the court decided

Smt. Shweta Agarwal vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:147741

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7084 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Shweta Agarwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sangeeta Shukla,Sushil Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

This application has been filed by applicant for granting anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 92 of 2018, under section 420 I.P.C. and Section 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act, Police Station-Hari Parwat, District Agra.

¶8

It is to be seen that in the present case summoning order has been passed on 21.07.2018.

¶9

On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the applicant as to why the applicant has not appeared before the court concerned for the last about six years learned counsel for the applicant submits that he had no knowledge with regard to proceedings. On a further pointed query to the learned counsel for the applicant as to the paragraph in the pleading where it has been stated that no summoning order has been served learned counsel for the applicant submits that no averment has been made in the paragraph. In the present case, the applicant since the year 2018 is not appearing before the court concerned despite the fact that summoning order has been passed on 21.07.2018 and about six years have lapsed.

¶10

It is to be seen that in the present case the summoning order has been passed in the year 2018. 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

¶11

appearance of the applicant and as such the applicant is fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause.

¶12

"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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

In the present case, the summons was issued in the year 2018, 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.

¶18

The question of service of the summons is a question of facts which has to be specifically pleaded by the applicant. The applicant has failed to substantiate the non service of the summons and as such the aforesaid plea is not tenable.

¶19

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 6 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 10.9.2024 K.K. Maurya

¶21

Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Shweta Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Smt. Shweta Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar Vishwakarma and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajeev Singh vs State of Up and 2 Others

Satish Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Naman Katiyaar and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Chandrabhan vs State of Up

Kamran vs State of U.P.