UKHC010134132026 2026:UHC:6685 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS ABA/319/2026 Sunny Dutt Saini --Applicant Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Avidit Noliyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The applicant has preferred the present anticipatory bail application apprehending arrest in connection with F.I.R./Case Crime No.821 of 2021, registered under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Pathri, District Haridwar. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that, during the course of investigation, the applicant did not cooperate with the Investigating Agency and, consequently, a Non-Bailable Warrant has already been issued against him by the competent Court. It is further submitted that the applicant has admitted his liability by depositing a sum of ₹1,78,200/-, which prima facie lends support to the prosecution case. Therefore, it is contended that the present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant submits that no summons were UKHC010134132026 2026:UHC:6685 ever served upon the applicant and, therefore, it cannot be said that he intentionally avoided the process of law. It is thus argued that the applicant deserves the protection of anticipatory bail. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that a Non-Bailable Warrant has already been issued against the applicant by the competent Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2024) 12 SCC 382, has explained the legal position governing proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been held that mere filing of an application for anticipatory bail through an advocate does not amount to the appearance of the accused before the Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed that a person can be treated as absconding only when there is material to indicate that he was aware that he was wanted by law and had deliberately concealed himself or evaded arrest. 6. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the view that once a Non- Bailable Warrant has already been issued against the applicant and he has not appeared before the Court concerned, the extraordinary discretionary relief of anticipatory bail cannot be granted at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 31.07.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7393 398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98744635 1E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.07.31 16:43:07 +05'30'