Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141524 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6604 of 2025 Applicant :- Divir Bij Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Kapoor Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. This application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 49 of 2015, under Sections 406 and 506 IPC, Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi. 2. At the outset, Sri V.P.Tripathi, learned AGA submits that the summon was issued by the concerned court for appearance of the applicant on 02.06.2016. The applicant did not appear before the court concerned. Consequently, non-bailable warrant was issued on 20.02.2019. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15018 of 2019, for quashing the summoning order dated 02.06.2016 as well as entire proceedings of the present case. The said application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2019 with liberty to the applicant to file a discharge application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. within 30 days. The discharge application filed by the applicant was rejected in the year 2019. He further submits that the applicant is well aware of the pending proceedings and is evading the process of law. On that ground he submits that the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 3. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri V.P.Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. Perusal of the record reflects that the applicant was summoned by the court concerned on 02.06.2016. The applicant did not appear before the court concerned. Consequently, non-bailable warrant was issued on 20.02.2019. Thereafter, the applicant preferred an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 15018 of 2019 for quashing the summoning order dated 02.06.2016 as well as entire proceedings of the present case. The said application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2019 with liberty to the applicant to file a discharge application under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. within 30 days. Pursuant thereto, the applicant had filed an application for discharge under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C.. The discharge application filed by the applicant has already been rejected. 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 of 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 Lbm/- Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad