Applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for a Section 376 IPC offence but had evaded proceedings, been summoned, and faced proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Citing precedent showing absconders are not entitled to pre-arrest bail, the court rejected the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29966
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1765 of 2025
Applicant :- Kuldeep Alias Jaideep Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
vs. State of Bihar and another, (2024) 3 SCR 421 in paragraphs 25 and 26 has held as under:-
" 25. The factual narration made hereinbefore would revel the consistent disobedience of the appellants to comply with the orders of the trial Court. They failed to appear before the Trial Court after the receipt of the summons, and then after the issuance of bailable warrants even when the are coaccused, after the issuance of bailable warrants, applied and obtained regular bail. Though the appellants filed an application, which they themselves described as "bail-cum-surrender application" on 23.08.2022, they got it withdrawn on the fear of being arrested. Even after the issuance of non-bailable warrants on 03.11.2022 they did not care to appear before the Trial Court and did not apply for regular bail after its recalling. It is a fact that even after coming to know about the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the did not take any steps to challenge the same or to enter appearance before the Trial Court to avert the consequences. Such conduct of the appellants in the light of the aforesaid circumstances, leaves us with no hesitation to hold that they are not entitled to seek the benefit of pre-arrest bail.
26. The upshot of the discussion is that there is no ground for interfering with the order of the High Court rejecting the application for anticipatory bail rather not considering application on merits. Since their action is nothing short of defying the lawful orders of the Court and attempting to delay the proceedings, this appeal must fails. Consequently, it is dismissed. "
Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Sachin Mishra
Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to an applicant who is absconding, evading summons, and against whom process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and anotherRelied on¶5
(2024) 3 SCR 421 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Kuldeep Alias Jaideep
State of U.P.
Vivek Varma
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
