A proclaimed offender is ordinarily disentitled to anticipatory bail absent rare and exceptional circumstances.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 1048 of 2016, registered at Police Station Shikohabad, District Firozabad, for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

He claimed false implication, undertook to cooperate with the investigation and trial, and stated that he would comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.

The State opposed the application, contending that proceedings under Section 82 CrPC/Section 84 BNSS had been initiated against the applicant on 9 August 2017, followed by proceedings under Section 83 CrPC on 15 September 2017.

It was further submitted that the applicant had neither cooperated with the investigation nor appeared before the Investigating Officer.

The Court recorded that the applicant had been declared a proclaimed offender before filing the anticipatory bail application.

Whether an accused who has been declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC/Section 84 BNSS is entitled to maintain an application for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS?

Whether the applicant’s case constituted a rare or exceptional circumstance warranting anticipatory bail despite the proclamation and his alleged non-cooperation with the investigation?

Section 482 BNSS, corresponding to Section 438 CrPC, confers an extraordinary power of pre-arrest protection that must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases, having regard to the gravity of the accusation, the possibility of the applicant evading justice, and the impact on investigation, as stated in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement.

Under the principles laid down in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, an accused who is absconding, concealing himself, and declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar holds that the initiation of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC is a material circumstance that cannot be casually ignored while considering anticipatory bail.

Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar reiterates that a person against whom a warrant or proclamation has been issued cannot ordinarily invoke the extraordinary power of anticipatory bail, although constitutional courts may intervene in extreme and exceptional cases.

State of Haryana v. Dharamraj further holds that a proclaimed offender should first successfully challenge the proclamation before seeking anticipatory bail, subject to the possibility of intervention in rare exceptional circumstances.

The Court found that the applicant had been declared a proclaimed offender pursuant to proceedings initiated under Section 82 CrPC before he filed the anticipatory bail application.

Applying Lavesh, Pradeep Sharma, Prem Shankar Prasad, Srikant Upadhyay, and Dharamraj, the Court held that the applicant’s abscondence, failure to cooperate with the investigation, and disregard of the court process placed him within the general rule excluding proclaimed offenders from anticipatory bail.

Although exceptional cases may justify pre-arrest protection, the applicant neither established any legal or plausible justification for his abscondence nor demonstrated circumstances warranting departure from the settled rule.

His conduct therefore disentitled him from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 BNSS.

Finding no rare or exceptional circumstance warranting interference, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application in Case Crime No. 1048 of 2016.