Serial No. 10 Supplementary-1 Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Bail App No. 102/2025 Ghulam Nabi Mir … Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr Javeed Ahmad Parray, Advocate. V/s Union Territory of J&K through Crime Branch, Kashmir … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE. (ORDER) 24.06.2025 01. The Petitioner, through the medium of the instant Bail Application, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with case bearing FIR No. 38/2014, registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Kashmir for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 34, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 511 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). 02. The Petitioner is seeking the protection from this Court apprehending his arrest, mainly on the ground that he did not commit any offence, rather a false and frivolous case has been foisted on him on the basis of trumped-up accusations. It is further pleaded by the Petitioner that he is a law-abiding citizen and that, in case he is admitted to bail in anticipation of his arrest, he will abide by any condition as may be imposed by this Court. Bail App No. 102/2025 03. Shorn of unnecessary details, it appears that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the official of the Directorate of School Education, Kashmir against the Petitioner for allegedly procuring an adjustment order by forging the signatures, a formal FIR came to be registered against the Petitioner and one Mst. Roohi Aziz. However, after registration of the said FIR, the Petitioner is said to have absconded and, thus, on presentation of charge-sheet before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganderbal on 22nd of August, 2022, the learned trial Court, upon drawing satisfaction that the accused/ Petitioner herein has been absconding after the commission of alleged offences, proceeded to issue proclamation in terms of Section 87 of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989 and, consequently, initiated proceedings against the Petitioner under Section 512 of the said Code which deals with record of evidence in absence of accused. 04. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that when the accused/ Petitioner herein has been declared as an absconder and the proclamation is being issued by the trial Court which is in force, the accused/ Petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking bail in anticipation of his arrest. 05. Heard and considered. I have also perused the pleadings available on record. 06. Law on the subject is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it has been authoritatively held in case titled ‘Sanatan Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.’, bearing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7358 of 2021, that the Courts shall not come to the rescue or help the accused who is not cooperating with the investigating agency and is absconding resulting in proclamation/ non-bailable warrants having been issued against him/ her. 07. In the recent past, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a batch of appeals with lead case titled as ‘Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda’, wherein the Appellants had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking bail in anticipation of their Bail App No. 102/2025 arrest, in terms of Judgment dated 9th of April, 2025, at Paragraph No. 27, has been pleased to observe as under: “27. In none of the impugned orders, the High Court has bothered to look into the proceedings conducted, and the detailed orders passed by the Special Court for securing the presence of the Respondents-Accused. It cannot be gainsaid that the judicial time of every court, even of Magistrate’s Court is as precious and valuable as that of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The accused are duty bound to cooperate the trial courts in proceeding further with the cases and bound to remain present in the Court as and when required by the Court. Not allowing the Courts to proceed further with the cases by avoiding execution of summons or warrants, disobeying the orders of the Court, and trying to delay the proceedings by hook or crook, would certainly amount to interfering with and causing obstruction in the administration of justice. As held in Srikant Upadhay’s case (supra), when warrant of arrest is issued or proclamation proceedings are initiated, the accused would not be entitled to invoke, except in exceptional cases, the extraordinary power of the Court to grant anticipatory bail. Granting anticipatory bail is certainly not the rule. The respondents-accused, who have continuously avoided to follow the due process of law, by avoiding attendance in the Court, by concealing themselves and thereby attempting to derail the proceedings, would not be entitled to the anticipatory bail. If the Rule of Law is to prevail in the society, every person would have to abide by the law, respect the law and follow the due process of law.” 08. In the light of the above-referred settled proposition of law on the subject, the instant Application is found to be devoid of any merit and it is held that once the Petitioner has absconded after commission of the alleged offences and proclamation proceedings against the Petitioner have been issued, he cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking protection in anticipation of his arrest. Accordingly, the present Bail Application is dismissed in limine. (SHAHZAD AZEEM) JUDGE SRINAGAR 24th June, 2025 “TAHIR”