IRFAN ALIversusSTATE OF U.P.

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 5194 of 2026

Irfan Ali
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Shoar Mohammad Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Raghavendra Singh, Suvarna
                                Singh, Upendra Singh

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
                                                        NABAIL No. 5194 of 2026
                                 2


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
                                  3


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
                                                                     4


                                    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.


                                                                                                (Vivek Varma,J.)
                                    September 21, 2026
                                    S.S.




Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad