An accused who misuses the liberty of bail by absconding for a prolonged period and showing disregard for the legal process is not entitled to discretionary relief of bail, regardless of the complainant turning hostile or settlements involving co-accused.

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. H.R. Prajapati for the applicant and learned APP Mr. L.B. Dabhi for the respondent-State.

2. By way of this application, the applicant seeks to be released on regular bail, more particularly the applicant having been arrested on account of Non-bailable Warrant issued by the learned Sessions Court, since the applicant did not attend the trial for substantially long period, even after the applicant was granted bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.I-31 of 2014 registered with Bodeli Police Station, District Chhotaudepur, for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The applicant having been arraigned as an accused and having been arrested in the year 2014 and having been released on regular bail in the year 2014, had come to be arrested in the year 2026 on account of not remaining present before the learned Trial Court, has preferred this application requesting this Court to enlarge him on regular bail.

4. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record, this Court is disinclined to consider the present application for the following reasons.

(i) While learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati for the applicant would submit that the complainant herself has turned hostile in the trial, yet, to this Court the present applicant would not be entitled to any benefit on account of the same, more particularly since it appears that the present applicant is prima facie a person, who neither has any respect for the rule of law nor he is a law abiding citizen. The same being apparent from the fact that the applicant, after having been released on regular bail, had not attended the trial for a period of 11 long years, more particularly it would appear that a non-bailable warrant had been issued against the present applicant in the year 2015 and whereas the same could be executed only in the month of January, 2026 i.e. after a period of 11 years.

(ii) To this Court it would appear that the applicant, having misused and abused the liberty having been granted to him since releasing the applicant on regular bail, would imply that the applicant would be available to attend the trial regularly and the applicant having absconded / having not remained present before the learned Trial Court for a period of 11 years, would make it very clear that the applicant had misused the liberty granted to him.

(iii) Learned Advocate Mr. Prajapati would also draw the attention of this Court to settlement being arrived at with other accused and the FIR having been quashed qua some of the accused and whereas to this Court no premium could be granted to the present applicant on such account, more particularly as noticed above, the applicant being a person who has absconded for 11 years, could not turn around and say that since the complainant has settled with other accused, therefore, there should be a settlement in his favour also or that the applicant would be entitled to be enlarged on regular bail.

(iv) To this Court it would appear that the fact of the present applicant having remained absconding for 11 years, may have resulted in the trial getting delayed and whereas the compromise etc. could have a direct relation with the fact that the trial not having commenced and not having completed and the complainant’s social circumstances having changed in the interregnum or the complainant being frustrated on account of the trial not reaching a conclusion, may have decided to settle with the other accused.

(v) In any case, to this Court it would appear that the applicant after having been enlarged on regular bail ha