HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1011 of 2025 Court No. - 12 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA for the State. 2. This Court vide order dated 18.09.2025 passed the following order:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA for the State. 2. Learned AGA, at the very outset, has raised a preliminary objection. It has been submitted that earlier the applicants had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., being Petition No. 3452 of 2019, wherein this Court permitted them to move a discharge application through counsel, which was duly filed. It has further been argued that since the applicants have already appeared before the learned trial court, the present application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Ramesh vs. State, Criminal Petition No. 9975 of 2021. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicants, while opposing the submissions advanced by the learned AGA, has contended that in the case of Ramesh (supra), the factual matrix was entirely different. In that case, after cognizance was taken, the Magistrate issued summons and, in response thereto, the accused appeared through counsel before the trial court and sought exemption from personal appearance. The said exemption was granted. Subsequently, the accused, through counsel, filed an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for exemption for the day, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dhemman @ Nanku And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) which was also allowed. In those circumstances, it was held that once exemption had been granted, the accused could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by filing an anticipatory bail application. It has been submitted that the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. 4. Perused the record. 5. The order passed in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3452 of 2019, as well as the order sheet of the trial court, are not on record. It is, therefore, not clear what order was passed in Petition No. 3452 of 2019 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and whether, after appearance through counsel in that petition, any further orders were passed either in favour of or against the applicants. 6. Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicants is directed to file a supplementary affidavit within one week, bringing on record the order passed in the aforesaid petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3452 of 2019, as well as the order sheet of the learned trial court. 7. Put up on 25.09.2025 in the list of fresh cases." 3. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today by the learned counsel for the applicants which is taken no record. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that, in compliance with the order dated 09.05.2019 passed in U/S 482/378/407 No. 3452 of 2019, the applicants had filed a discharge application through counsel on 04.06.2019. Thereafter, no exemption was sought by the applicants. Upon rejection of the discharge application, they preferred an anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, which too was rejected, leading to the filing of the present anticipatory bail application. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the questionnaire received from the office of the court below. 6. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer, contending that cognizance was taken in 2019 and since then the applicants have been absconding. Despite the order dated 09.05.2019, several exemption applications were filed on their behalf. The discharge application filed in 2019 could have been decided in the same year, had the applicants cooperated. The trial court, ABAIL No. 1011 of 2025 2 while rejecting the discharge application, recorded a prima facie finding of commission of the offence. 7. Perused the record. 8. A perusal of the record shows that cognizance was indeed taken in 2019. The order sheet further reveals that non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicants on 10.06.2024, yet they remained absent. Applications for exemption from appearance were allowed on three occasions. The trial, however, has remained pending at the committal stage due to non- cooperation of the accused persons. Further non-bailable warrants were issued on 24.08.2025, and on 15.09.2025 proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the accused-applicants along with issuance of fresh non-bailable warrants. The offence alleged is under Section 376(D) IPC, which is a heinous offence. 9. Considering the applicants’ continued non-cooperation, the gravity of the offence, and the fact that they have been absconding since 2019, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application stands dismissed. September 25, 2025 R.C. ABAIL No. 1011 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench