A proclaimed offender ordinarily cannot claim anticipatory bail absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 410 of 2025, alleging innocence and undertaking to cooperate with the investigation.

The State opposed the application, contending that proceedings under Section 82 CrPC/Section 84 BNSS had already been initiated and that the applicants were not cooperating or appearing before the investigating officer

The Court recorded that the applicants had been declared proclaimed offenders before filing the application.

No one appeared for the applicants at the hearing, including on the revised call.

1. Whether an anticipatory-bail application is ordinarily maintainable where the applicants have been declared proclaimed offenders before filing it

2. Whether the circumstances justified the exceptional exercise of the Court’s power to grant anticipatory bail despite the applicants’ proclaimed-offender status

Section 482 BNSS (the provision invoked for anticipatory bail) confers an extraordinary discretion, to be exercised cautiously and not as a matter of course; the corresponding principle under Section 438 CrPC was stated in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24

Under Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, a person who is absconding and declared a proclaimed offender is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail

Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955, cautions against granting anticipatory bail while ignoring proceedings under Sections 82–83 CrPC

Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, recognizes that, although exceptional relief may remain available in an extreme case, a person against whom a warrant or proclamation has issued is ordinarily not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power

State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1085, similarly states that a proclaimed offender must first successfully challenge that status before seeking anticipatory bail, subject to exceptional cases.

The Court found that proclamation proceedings had been initiated against the applicants before they sought anticipatory bail, and that they had been declared proclaimed offenders.

Applying the cited Supreme Court authorities, it held that absconding from the process of law ordinarily disentitles an applicant from anticipatory-bail relief; exceptional relief is possible, but the applicants’ conduct did not disclose a rare or exceptional circumstance warranting it.

Their asserted willingness to cooperate did not overcome the Court’s finding that they had failed to cooperate with the investigation or trial process.

The anticipatory-bail application was rejected.