Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61307 Court No. - 64 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8750 of 2025 Applicant :- Ruby Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava,Nishant Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record. 3. This bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the applicant Ruby Singh, seeking bail during trial in Case Crime No. 21 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Rasra, District Ballia. 4. At the very outset, bail is being pressed by learned counsel for the applicant on the ground of parity which is being claimed from the order dated 21.04.2022 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 44267 of 2021 (Kamlesh Singh Vs. State of U.P.) and it is submitted that Kamlesh Singh the jeth of the deceased Smt. Rajni and the husband of the applicant, has been granted bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the FIR of the present matter was lodged on 29.01.2021 naming the applicant, Amlesh Singh, Kamlesh Singh, mother-in-law, Akhilesh Singh and Kajal as the accused in which Kamlesh Singh the husband of the applicant and jeth of the deceased was arrested on 28.05.2021 who has subsequently granted bail but the applicant who is the jethani of the deceased and wife of Kamlesh Singh absconded and it was on 31.01.2025 that she was arrested. It is submitted that as such the applicant absconded for a good period of four years despite the fact that her husband who is a co-accused was arrested and was granted bail and there is no explanation tendered by the applicant regarding her abscondence. It is further submitted that the applicant has filed an application for anticipatory bail before this Court being Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 6009 of 2021 (Rubi Vs. State of U.P.) which was disposed of vide order dated 05.03.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court with a direction that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court concerned within 60 days from the date of order and applies for bail, her prayer for bail be decided as per settled law of this Court and the Apex Court. Till then no coercive action was directed against the applicant. It is submitted that however the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail was refused. The said order has been placed before the Court extracted hereinbelow: "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A, for the State. Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application This exemption application is allowed. Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Rubi, with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 0021 of 2021, under Sections- 498A, 304-B I.P.C and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Rasra, District- Ballia, during pendency of trial. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material brought on record as well as complicity of accused and also judgement of the Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2019 SC 4198, this Court does not finds any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and on the request of learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that in case the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for bail, her prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as per the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appears before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against her. It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this court for surrendering before the court below as directed above. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of." 6. It is submitted that even after the directions in the anticipatory bail and knowing well regarding the present case, the applicant absconded for four years. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant in rebuttal submits that the applicant was living in Delhi and a such she did not surrender or appear before the court concerned. The said fact is totally vague and clearly shows the intention of the applicant to abscond. 8. After having heard the counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant absconded for a period of four years despite the fact that her husband who is a co-accused in the matter was arrested in the year 2021 and was subsequently granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.04.2022 but even thereafter she continued to abscond and it was only on 31.01.2025 she was arrested. Even after the dismissal of anticipatory bail application in the year 2021 granting time for 60 days to surrender and applies for bail, the applicant misused the process of law despite a time bound protective order and continued to abscond. I do not find it to be a fit case for interference at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 M. ARIF (Samit Gopal, J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad