Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141527 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 4831 of 2025 Applicant :- Aniruddacharya Chela Bhagwan Das Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Vyas,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.17 of 2000, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mant, District Mathura. 2. At the outset, learned AGA for the State submits that after investigation charge-sheet was submitted and the applicant was summoned by the court concerned vide order dated 27.2.2001. The applicant filed an application u/s 482 No. 3079 of 2001 for quashing the charge-sheet. The said application was disposed of vide order dated 17.7.2015 granting liberty to the applicant to appear before the court concerned within 30 days and apply for bail. The applicant failed to appear before the court concerned. He again filed an application u/s 482 No. 30207 of 2018. The court vide order dated 31.8.2018 disposed of the said application with the liberty to the applicant to surrender before the court concerned within 45 days and apply for bail. The applicant failed to appear. Learned AGA further contends that the applicant is well aware of the pending proceedings and is evading the process of law. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non-appearance of the applicant. On that ground, he submits that the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.K. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Perusal of the record reflects that the applicant had earlier preferred an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3079 of 2001 for quashing the charge-sheet. The said application was disposed of vide order dated 17.7.2015 with liberty to the applicant to appear before the court concerned within 30 days and apply for bail. The applicant failed to appear. The applicant again filed an application u/s 482 No.30207 of 2018 (Shri Aniruddhacharya Ji Mahraj vs. State of U.P. and another). The court vide order dated 31.8.2018 disposed of the said application with the liberty to the applicant to surrender before the court concerned within 45 days and apply for bail. Yet again the applicant failed to appear. The applicant is well aware of the pending proceedings. The applicant is avoiding attendance in the court. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non-appearance of the applicant and as such the applicant is fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause. 5. "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. 6. 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. 7. The Supreme Court in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC 518 has observed that while granting bail, especially anticipatory bail which is per se extraordinary in nature, the possibility of the accused to influence prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased, fleeing from justice or creating other impediments in the fair investigation, ought not to be overlooked. 8. 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 finds 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. 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. 9. In view of the above facts, it is evident that the applicant is evading the process of law and has remained absent from the court proceedings for a considerable period time which is indicative of the fact that the applicant is fleeing from the process of law. In view, thereof, such conduct of the applicant does not entitle him for grant of anticipatory bail. 10. The application is dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 S.S. Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad