Advocates:
['SUSHIL KUMAR MISHRA', '', 'SAURABH PANDEY', 'G A', '', 'RAJESH KUMAR YADAV']

Court No. - 71

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL

APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1371 of 2022

Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Sharma

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Mishra,Saurabh

Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Heard Sri Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant

and Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the first

informant and Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State

and perused the record.

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed with the

following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble

Court may be graciously be pleased to allow the application

and to grant the applicant Anticipatory bail in connection with

complaint case number 1939 of 2013 under Sections 420, 120-

B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Murainipur,

District Jhansi, till the completion of the trial before the court

below."

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has

been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that

although the applicant had filed an application for discharge

before the trial court on 01.04.2016 which was dismissed vide

order dated 05.04.2019 but looking to the merits of the matter it

would be apparent that no case whatsoever was made against

the applicant. It is argued that the delay in approaching the

Court is well explained and there was no intentionally delay on

the part of the applicant. It is further argued that the

proceedings before the Court below are without jurisdiction and

non bailable warrants have been issued on 14.11.2019 in a

casual manner without actually serving him with a fresh

summoning order. Para 21 of the affidavit has been placed

before the Court. It is further argued that no prima facie case is

made out against the applicant. It is argued while placing para

23 of the affidavit that the said offences are punishable with

imprisonment of seven years in the case of Satinder Kumar

Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another :

(SLP) Crl. No. 5191 of 2021 it has been held that non bailable

warrants may be cancelled or converted into a bailable warrant

or summons without insisting on the physical appearance of the

accused if such an application is moved by him or an

undertaking is given to appear physically on the next date of

hearing. The applicant has no criminal history as stated in para

27 of the affidavit in support of anticipatory bail application.

Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the first

informant vehemently opposed for anticipatory bail and argued

that in the present case, a complaint was filed in the year 2013

on which cognizance was taken and the applicant was

summoned vide order dated 04.02.2015 by the trial court. It is

argued that subsequently he filed a discharge application on

01.04.2016 which came to be rejected for non prosecution on

05.04.2019 and non bailable warrants were issued but still then

the applicant continued to abscond. It is argued that

abscondence of the applicant is enormous and there is no

plausible explanation regarding the same. It is further argued

that since the proceedings has started against him he absconded

intentionally. It was his duty to honour the summons issued

against him but he failed to do so on the pretext of filing of the

discharge application and had continued to get the matter

adjourned till 2019.

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing

the records, it is evident that the complaint was filed on

11.03.2013. The applicant was summoned vide order dated

04.02.2015 after which a discharge application was filed by him

on 01.04.2016 which was came to be dismissed for non

prosecution on 05.04.2019. The applicant filed an application

under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge which was

rejected and then has approac