BAIL APPLICATION 1648 of 2008 on 27 April 2009

1. At the outset, Sri Prashant Singh Som, learned counsel for theinformant appeared and submitted that he has no instructions in thematter, as such, his name may be removed from the cause list.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. forthe State.

3. The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with aprayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant in ComplaintCase No. 1648 of 2008, under Sections 452, 395, 427, 504, 506IPC, Police Station- Noorpur, District- Bijnor, during the pendencyof trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant isinnocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due toulterior motive. Instant complaint has been lodged due to priorenmity between the parties. Summoning order is not supported byany cogent evidence. Learned Magistrate without applying hisjudicial mind, summoned applicant by order dated 04.02.2009. Henext submitted that applicant challenged summoning order beforethis Court by filing Application U/S 482 No. 9649 of 2009. ThisCourt vide order dated 27.04.2009 stayed the criminal proceedingsof the Complaint Case No. 408 of 2008 (Smt. Kalpana vs. Nitinand others), under Sections 452, 395, 427, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.Noorpur, District- Bijnor. Thereafter, the said application underSection 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed in non-appearance ofapplicant's counsel. He next submitted that applicant had noknowledge regarding summon issued by learned Magistrate. Hefurther submitted that from perusal of contents of complaint andstatements of witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202Cr.P.C., no offence under alleged sections is made out against theapplicant. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, hewould not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with thetrial proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the anticipatorybail application of the applicant and submitted that it is a very oldmatter and on account of delaying tactics adopted by the applicant,instant complaint instituted in the year 2008, is still pending.Summons were served upon applicant, therefore, he challenged thesummoning order before this Court by filing an application underSections 482 Cr.P.C. and the said application was dismissed innon-appearance of applicant's counsel in the year 2021. Afterdismissal of the same, applicant neither appeared nor adopted anyother legal remedy and deliberately avoided trial proceedings, assuch, applicant should not be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

6. Considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for theparties and perused the entire record. From perusal of record, it isapparent that applicant was having knowledge of summon issuedby learned Magistrate, the same was challenged by the applicantbefore this Court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.and after dismissal of the said application, he did not try to get anyother legal remedy. Further, from last three years, applicantdeliberately avoided summon issued by the learned Magistrate.Further, NBW has also been issued against the applicant. In suchview of the matter, no interference is warranted by this Court atthis stage.

7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.

8. However, if the applicant surrenders before the concerned courtwithin two weeks from today and applies for regular bail, the bailapplication shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned,in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in SatenderKumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another,reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.

9. For the period of two weeks from today or till the time ofsurrender of the applicant before the court below, whichever isearlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

Order Date :- 9.1.2025Aditya