Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138528 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6309 of 2025 Applicant :- Kanish Fatima Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Priya Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. The present application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 1523 of 2015, under Sections 191, 192, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Mau. 2. At the outset Sri Shashank Shekhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State, submits that the charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant on 22.10.2016 and the applicant was summoned by the court concerned. The applicant did not appear before the court concerned. Consequently, non-bailable warrant was issued on 06.03.2018 and thereafter process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. was issued on 27.02.2023. He contends that the applicant is evading the process of law and has failed to appear before the court. On that ground he submits that the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Shekhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State- opposite party, and perused the record. 4. Perusal of the order-sheet of the court concerned reflects that non-bailable warrant was issued on 06.03.2018. Proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C. were initiated on 27.02.2023. The applicant is absconding and is evading the process of law. The issuance of coercive measures against the applicants by the concerned court has also not been disputed by the counsel for the applicant. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and another, (2024) 3 SCR 421, in paragraphs 25 and 26 has held as under:- "25. The factual narration made hereinbefore would revel the consistent disobedience of the appellants to comply with the orders of the trial Court. They failed to appear before the Trial Court after the receipt of the summons, and then after the issuance of bailable warrants even when the co-accused, after the issuance of bailable warrants, applied and obtained regular bail. Though the appellants filed an application, which they themselves described as "bail-cum-surrender application" on 23.08.2022, they got it withdrawn on the fear of being arrested. Even after the issuance of non-bailable warrants on 03.11.2022 they did not care to appear before the Trial Court and did not apply for regular bail after its recalling. It is a fact that even after coming to know about the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., they did not take any steps to challenge the same or to enter appearance before the Trial Court to avert the consequences. Such conduct of the appellants in the light of the aforesaid circumstances, leaves us with no hesitation to hold that they are not entitled to seek the benefit of pre-arrest bail. 26. The upshot of the discussion is that there is no ground for interfering with the order of the High Court rejecting the application for anticipatory bail rather not considering application on merits. Since their action is nothing short of defying the lawful orders of the Court and attempting to delay the proceedings, this appeal must fails. Consequently, it is dismissed." 6. Reference may also be made to the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs. Aditya Sarda (Criminal Appeal No.NIL of 2025 arsing out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.13956 of 2023) decided on 09.04.2025. 7. In view thereof, the applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the application is hereby rejected. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 SKT/- Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad