A proclaimed offender is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 510 of 2023, Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly, registered under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

He asserted innocence, false implication, and undertook to cooperate with the investigation and trial.

The State opposed the application, contending that proceedings under Section 82 CrPC/Section 84 BNSS had already been initiated before the anticipatory-bail application was filed, that the applicant had been declared a proclaimed offender, and that he was neither cooperating with the investigation nor appearing before the Investigating Officer.

The Court accepted that proclamation proceedings had been initiated against the applicant before the filing of the application.

Whether an anticipatory-bail application under Section 482 BNSS is maintainable when the applicant has already been declared a proclaimed offender pursuant to proceedings under Section 82 CrPC/Section 84 BNSS?

Whether the applicant’s conduct disclosed any rare or exceptional circumstance warranting anticipatory bail despite the proclamation?

Section 482 BNSS, corresponding to Section 438 CrPC, confers an extraordinary power of pre-arrest bail, to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases.

In Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, and State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, the Supreme Court held that an absconding accused or proclaimed offender is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955, cautioned that proceedings under Sections 82–83 CrPC cannot be casually ignored while considering anticipatory bail.

Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, reaffirmed that a person against whom a warrant or proclamation has been issued cannot ordinarily invoke the extraordinary power of anticipatory bail, except in an extreme and exceptional case.

State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1085, further held that a proclaimed offender must first successfully challenge the proclamation before seeking anticipatory bail, subject to the limited jurisdiction of constitutional courts in exceptional cases.

The Court also relied on P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, which characterises anticipatory bail as an exceptional remedy requiring consideration of the gravity of the accusation, risk of absconding, and possible interference with investigation.

The Court found that the applicant had already been subjected to proclamation proceedings and declared a proclaimed offender before filing the anticipatory-bail application.

Applying Lavesh, Pradeep Sharma, Prem Shankar Prasad, Srikant Upadhyay, and Dharamraj, the Court held that such conduct ordinarily bars access to anticipatory bail.

The applicant had not shown any legal or plausible justification for his failure to appear or cooperate with the investigation, and his deliberate disregard of the court process negated any claim that the matter fell within the narrow category of rare and exceptional cases.

His alleged non-cooperation and continued absence also weighed against exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482 BNSS.

No exceptional circumstance justified departure from the settled rule applicable to proclaimed offenders.

The anticipatory-bail application was therefore declared not maintainable and was rejected.