Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36442 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8153 of 2025 Applicant :- Aditya Dixit Alias Bhura Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vibhendu Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Vibhendu Mishra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Rizwan Ahmad, learned AGA for State and perused the record. 2. The presentapplication has been filed by the applicant challenging the charge-sheet dated 16.04.2011, cognizance order dated 31.05.2011 and consequential non-bailable warrants in Criminal Case No. 1375 of 2011, State v. Aditya @ Bhura, arising out of Case Crime No. 6 of 2011, under Sections 363, 366, 494 IPC, Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh. 3. At the outset, learned A.G.A. submits that the chargesheet is of the year 2011 and the case is pending since then before the court concerned, wherein the applicant has been summoned on 31.05.2011. Non-bailable warrants have been issued in the year 2017, however, since then they did not appear. From the order- sheet, annexed as Annexure-1 (Page-31 onwards), it is clear evident that the applicant is not appearing before the court to face trial and avoiding trial appearance on the dates fixed before the court concerned. 4. On the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant is not in a position to reply properly as to why the applicant is not appearing before the court. He submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. He further submits that due to personal difficulty the applicant could not appear before the Court below. 5. The record reflects that the applicant has deliberately avoided the process of law, therefore, they cannot be entitled to any relief from this Court in exercise of extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They have failed to substantiate before this Court in view of the reasoning stated hereinabove that due to personal difficulty they could not appear before the court concerned. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non-appearance of the applicant and as such he is fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause. 6. "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. 7. 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. 8. The Supreme Court in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC 518 has observed that while granting bail, the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses, fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in the fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked. 9. 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 process of law. 10. In the present case, no reasonable explanation has been offered by the learned counsel for the applicant for non- appearance of the applicant before 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 do not deserve any protection in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. 11. The record appended with the petition in itself demonstrates that the applicant is avoiding the proceedings. 12. In view of the facts, it is evident that the applicant has no respect for the proceedings of the court and have remained absent from the court proceedings since 2011 which is indicative of the fact that the applicant is fleeing from the process of law. Therefore, prayer in respect of applicant is refused and the application is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 DS Digitally signed by :- DIGAMBER SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad