HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 5194 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Upendra Singh, counsel for the informant. Perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case No. 6189 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 540 of 2016, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Chandausi, District- Sambhal. 3. At the outset, Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned AGA for the State has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present application. He submitted that after investigation, the applicant was not chargesheeted and a final report in favour of the applicant was submitted by the investigating officer. Against the said final report, the informant preferred a protest petition before the concerned Magistrate. On 19.12.2019, the final report dated 23.5.2017 was rejected and the applicant along with other accused were summoned to face trial under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 452, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2019, the applicant and other accused preferred a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi, which came to be dismissed on 20.12.2023. Against the said orders dated 19.12.2019 and 20.12.2023, the applicant and other accused filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5308 of 2024 (Taj Babu Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shoar Mohammad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Raghavendra Singh, Suvarna Singh, Upendra Singh Irfan Ali .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) and others vs. State of U.P.). The said application was dismissed on 5.7.2024. 5. The applicant thereafter failed to appear before the court concerned. Consequently, a non-bailable warrant was issued against him on 27.11.2024. The applicant then filed an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi. On 6.2.2025 anticipatory bail application was rejected. Thereafter, the applicant approached this Court by filing Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 482 B.N.S.S. No. 2521 of 2025. The said application was dismissed as withdrawn on 4.4.2025 with liberty to the applicant to surrender before the court concerned and apply for regular bail. Despite the said order, the applicant neither appeared before the trial court nor surrendered or applied for regular bail. The applicant, thereafter filed another Application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. No.5604 of 2026 challenging the order dated 5.11.2025 issuing non-bailable warrant against him. The said application was dismissed for want of prosecution on 11.3.2026. Thereafter, the present application has been filed. 6. Learned AGA further submits that during the pendency of the proceedings proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued on 2.6.2026 and thereafter process under Section 83 was issued on 10.8.2026. The applicant is fully aware of the pendency of the proceedings before the court concerned. He further submitted that the anticipatory bail application of the identically placed co-accused Waseem has been rejected by this court vide order dated 10.9.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9014 of 2026. The proceedings of the court concerned have been held up on account of non-appearance of the applicant as such the applicant is fleeing from the process of law without any reasonable cause. 7. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that one of the co-accused namely Taj Babu, whose anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail application No. 2656 of 2025, approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where interim protection was granted to him on 24.11.2025 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 46334 of 2025, which was later confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.01.2026. It is submitted that, on NABAIL No. 5194 of 2026 2 the strength of the aforesaid order. The applicant may also be extended similar protection and the present anticipatory bail application may be allowed. 8. I have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The record indicate that the applicant is well aware of the pendency of proceedings before the trial court. Despite summons having been issued and despite having knowledge of the proceedings the applicant has failed to appear before the trial court. Non-bailable warrant, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has already been issued. Insofar as the anticipatory bail of co-accused Taj Babu is concerned, the same was rejected by this Court on 20.5.2025 and he approached the Supreme Court expeditiously where he was granted interim protection on 24.11.2025. However, in the present case, the first anticipatory bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by this court on 4.4.2025 with liberty to the applicant to surrender before the concerned court and apply for regular bail. The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. challenging the order issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 11.3.2026. Despite the aforesaid orders, the applicant failed to appear, and no satisfactory explanation has been furnished for filing the present second application after more than a year of the dismissal of the first application. 9. 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 are 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 NABAIL No. 5194 of 2026 3 after its recalling. It is a fact that even after coming to know about the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the 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." 10. 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. Nill of 2025 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13959 of 2023) decided on 9.4.2025. 11. Applying the aforesaid principles, to the facts of the present case, this court finds that the applicant is evading the process of law and had remained absent from the court proceedings for a considerable period of time. Such conduct of the applicant does not entitle him for grant of anticipatory bail. 12. The application is dismissed accordingly. September 21, 2026 S.S. NABAIL No. 5194 of 2026 4 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad