Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Ghulam Nabi Mir vs Union Territory Of J&K Through Crime … on 24 June, 2025
Serial No. 10
Supplementary-1 Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Bail App No. 102/2025
Ghulam Nabi Mir
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr Javeed Ahmad Parray, Advocate.
V/s
Union Territory of J&K through Crime Branch, Kashmir
... Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE.
(ORDER)
24.06.2025
01. The Petitioner, through the medium of the instant Bail
Application, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking bail in anticipation
of his arrest in connection with case bearing FIR No. 38/2014, registered at
Police Station Crime Branch, Kashmir for the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 34, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 511 of the Ranbir
Penal Code (RPC).
02. The Petitioner is seeking the protection from this Court
apprehending his arrest, mainly on the ground that he did not commit any
offence, rather a false and frivolous case has been foisted on him on the
basis of trumped-up accusations. It is further pleaded by the Petitioner that
he is a law-abiding citizen and that, in case he is admitted to bail in
anticipation of his arrest, he will abide by any condition as may be imposed
by this Court.
Bail App No. 102/2025
Page 2 of 3
03. Shorn of unnecessary details, it appears that on the basis of a
complaint lodged by the official of the Directorate of School Education,
Kashmir against the Petitioner for allegedly procuring an adjustment order
by forging the signatures, a formal FIR came to be registered against the
Petitioner and one Mst. Roohi Aziz. However, after registration of the said
FIR, the Petitioner is said to have absconded and, thus, on presentation of
charge-sheet before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ganderbal on 22nd of August, 2022, the learned trial Court, upon drawing
satisfaction that the accused/ Petitioner herein has been absconding after the
commission of alleged offences, proceeded to issue proclamation in terms
of Section 87 of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989 and,
consequently, initiated proceedings against the Petitioner under Section 512
of the said Code which deals with record of evidence in absence of accused.
04. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that when the accused/ Petitioner
herein has been declared as an absconder and the proclamation is being
issued by the trial Court which is in force, the accused/ Petitioner herein has
approached this Court seeking bail in anticipation of his arrest.
05. Heard and considered. I have also perused the pleadings
available on record.
06. Law on the subject is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and it has been authoritatively held in case titled ‘Sanatan Pandey v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.’, bearing Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
No. 7358 of 2021, that the Courts shall not come to the rescue or help the
accused who is not cooperating with the investigating agency and is
absconding resulting in proclamation/ non-bailable warrants having been
issued against him/ her.
07. In the recent past, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing
with a batch of appeals with lead case titled as ‘Serious Fraud
Investigation Office v. Aditya Sarda‘, wherein the Appellants had
approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking bail in anticipation of their
Bail App No. 102/2025
Page 3 of 3
arrest, in terms of Judgment dated 9th of April, 2025, at Paragraph No. 27,
has been pleased to observe as under:
“27. In none of the impugned orders, the High Court has
bothered to look into the proceedings conducted, and the detailed
orders passed by the Special Court for securing the presence of the
Respondents-Accused. It cannot be gainsaid that the judicial time of
every court, even of Magistrate’s Court is as precious and valuable
as that of the High Court and the Supreme Court. The accused are
duty bound to cooperate the trial courts in proceeding further with
the cases and bound to remain present in the Court as and when
required by the Court. Not allowing the Courts to proceed further
with the cases by avoiding execution of summons or warrants,
disobeying the orders of the Court, and trying to delay the
proceedings by hook or crook, would certainly amount to interfering
with and causing obstruction in the administration of justice. As held
in Srikant Upadhay’s case (supra), when warrant of arrest is issued
or proclamation proceedings are initiated, the accused would not be
entitled to invoke, except in exceptional cases, the extraordinary
power of the Court to grant anticipatory bail. Granting anticipatory
bail is certainly not the rule. The respondents-accused, who have
continuously avoided to follow the due process of law, by avoiding
attendance in the Court, by concealing themselves and thereby
attempting to derail the proceedings, would not be entitled to the
anticipatory bail. If the Rule of Law is to prevail in the society, every
person would have to abide by the law, respect the law and follow
the due process of law.”
08. In the light of the above-referred settled proposition of law on
the subject, the instant Application is found to be devoid of any merit and it
is held that once the Petitioner has absconded after commission of the
alleged offences and proclamation proceedings against the Petitioner have
been issued, he cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court
seeking protection in anticipation of his arrest. Accordingly, the present
Bail Application is dismissed in limine.
(SHAHZAD AZEEM)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
24th June, 2025
“TAHIR”