Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26253 (ALL)

DR. SAURABH VASHISHTHA v. STATE OF U.P.

NABAIL/1845/2025 · 2025-03-04

Vivek Varma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31425 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1845 of 2025 Applicant :- Dr. Saurabh Vashishtha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 1123 of 2017, under Sections 376, 506 of I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Etah. 2. At the outset, learned A.G.A. submits that after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the applicant on 24.10.2017 and the applicant was summoned by the court concerned. The applicant filed an application under Section 482 No. 8348 of 2018 (Dr. Saurabh Vashishtha vs. State of U.P. and another) for quashing the charge-sheet. The said application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.03.2018. Subsequent, thereto, the applicant does not appear before the court concerned. Non-bailable warrant has already been issued against the applicant. The applicant is evading the process of law. The proceedings of the court have been held up on account of non-appearance of the applicant. The applicant is fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause. 3. Head counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. Perusal of the record shows that the applicant was summoned by the concerned court. The applicant did not appear before the concerned court. The applicant challenged the charge-sheet by filing an application under Section 482 No. 8348 of 2018 (Dr. Saurabh Vashishtha vs. State of U.P. and another). The said application was dismissed on 22.03.2018. The applicant is well aware of the pending proceedings. The issuance of coercive measures against the applicant by the concerned court has not been disputed by the counsel for the applicant. In view, thereof, such conduct of the applicant does not entitle him for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Accordingly, the application is hereby rejected. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Sachin Mishra Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad