The court emphasized the necessity of ensuring a defendant's presence at trial, citing a history of absconding as grounds for denying bail.

ORDER

The petitioner, who had jumped bail in a case, had been absconding for nearly seven years. A non-bailable warrant issued against him on 09.03.2018 was executed only on 20.01.2025.

2. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a non-bailable warrant had been issued against him on 09.03.2018 and that he was subsequently secured and remanded to judicial custody on 20.01.2025. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for more than seven years and hence, this is a fit case to enlarge him on bail.

3. The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, who submitted that the petitioner had been absconding since seven years and secured only on 20.01.2025 after nearly seven years. It was further submitted that, if he is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of his absconding again and delaying the trial.

4. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

5. On consideration of the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had absconded for a period of nearly seven years and was secured and remanded to judicial custody only on 20.01.2025. In such circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), there is every possibility of the petitioner absconding again, if he is enlarged on bail. Therefore, in order to secure his presence during trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.