Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44621 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 12104 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt. Manju Gupta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. C.P. Upadhyay,Sanjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bhaiya Ghanshyam Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. 12878 of 2019 (State vs. Baleshwar Prasad & others), under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of I.P.C., Police Station- Rasda, District- Ballia. 2. At the outset, learned A.G.A. submits that after conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants on 05.01.2019. The applicants filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 395 of 2020 (Smt Manju Gupta and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and Another) for quashing the charge-sheet. The said application was disposed of with a direction to the applicants to appear and surrender before the court concerned within thirty days and apply for bail. The applicants did not surrender before the concerned court. Consequently, non-bailable warrant was issued on 09.02.2024. The applicants challenged the order dated 09.02.2024 by filing 482 No. 7840 of 2024 (Baleshwar Prasad and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and Another). The said application was dismissed as withdrawn. The applicants are well aware of the pending proceedings. Further, during the pendency of the proceedings, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has also been issued against them. On that ground, he submits that the applicants are not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 3. Heard counsel for the applicants, Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. Perusal of the record shows that charge-sheet against the applicants was submitted on 05.01.2019 and the applicants were summoned by the court concerned. The applicants filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 395 of 2020 (Smt Manju Gupta and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and Another) for quashing the charge-sheet. The said application was disposed of with a direction to the applicants to appear and surrender before the court concerned within thirty days and apply for bail. The applicants did not surrender before the concerned court. Consequently, non- bailable warrant was issued against the applicants on 09.02.2024. The applicants challenged the order issuing non-bailable warrant by filing 482 No. 7840 of 2024 (Baleshwar Prasad and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and Another). The said application was dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently thereto, the applicant failed to appear. The applicants are absconding and are evading the process of law. Process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has also been issued against the applicants on 27.02.2024. The applicants are well aware of the pending proceedings. The issuance of coercive measures against the applicants by the concerned court has also not been disputed by the counsel for the applicants. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and others 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 co- accused, 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." 6. In view thereof, the applicants are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, the application is hereby rejected. Order Date :- 1.4.2025 Sachin Mishra Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad