Dismissed

Irfan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2024ABAIL/7381/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application in a case of summons issued in 2020 under IPC sections 323, 504 and 506 was dismissed because the applicant never appeared before the trial court despite the summoning order and offered no explanation for non-appearance, indicating he was fleeing from the process of law.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:147636

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7381 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Irfan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Dwivedi 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. 208 of 2018, under sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi.

¶8

In the present case summoning order has been passed against the applicant on 01.06.2020. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that when the applicant came to know about the criminal proceedings applicant has filed 482 application which was disposed of by order dated 01.06.2024.

¶9

On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the applicant as to when the summons were served on the applicant learned counsel for the applicant submits that the date of service of summons has not been disclosed. The summoning order was passed in the year 2020. The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed in the year 2024 which has also been disposed of directing the applicant to apply for bail. There is no explanation of the applicant as to why the applicant has not honoured the summons issued by the court since the year 2020.

¶10

It is to be seen that in the present case the summoning order has been passed in the year 2020. 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 appearance of the applicant and as such the applicant is fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause.

¶11

"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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

process of law.

¶16

In the present case, the summons was issued in the year 2020, 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.

¶17

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 4 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.9.2024

¶19

K.K. Maurya

¶20

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

Irfan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Irfan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaibhav Mittal and 4 Others vs State of U.P.

Vikalp Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Seema and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandani Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahis Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijendra Singh vs State of U.P.