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

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 1031 of 2019, registered at Police Station Phase-3, Noida, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC

The applicant claimed innocence and undertook to cooperate with the investigation; the State opposed relief, contending that proceedings under Section 82 CrPC/Section 84 BNSS had been initiated before the application was filed and that the applicant was not cooperating with the investigation

The Court recorded that the applicant had been declared a proclaimed offender in the case

1. Whether an anticipatory-bail application is maintainable where the applicant has been declared a proclaimed offender before filing the application

2. Whether the applicant’s circumstances constituted an exceptional case warranting anticipatory bail despite the proclamation and alleged non-cooperation

The Court applied Section 482 BNSS, the provision invoked for anticipatory bail, alongside its references to Section 438 CrPC and the proclamation process under Section 82 CrPC/Section 84 BNSS

Relying on *Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi*, (2012) 8 SCC 730) and *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma*, (2014) 2 SCC 171, it stated that an absconding accused declared a proclaimed offender is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail

*Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar*, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955, underscores that proclamation proceedings are a relevant consideration that cannot be ignored

*Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar*, (2024) 12 SCC 382, characterises anticipatory bail as an extraordinary remedy and states that a person against whom a warrant or proclamation has issued is not entitled to invoke it, while preserving the Court’s power to grant relief in extreme, exceptional cases

*State of Haryana v. Dharamraj*, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1085, confirms that an applicant must first successfully challenge the proclaimed-offender order and recognises a possible exception in rare cases

The Court also relied on *P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement*, (2019) 9 SCC 24, for the principle that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly, after considering the accusation, risk of flight and effect on investigation

The Court found that proclamation proceedings had been initiated before the application and that the applicant had been declared a proclaimed offender

Applying the authorities on absconding accused, it held that such conduct ordinarily excludes anticipatory-bail relief; the applicant had offered no legal or plausible justification for evading process, and his conduct did not bring the case within the recognised rare-and-exceptional category

The Court also noted the applicant’s alleged failure to cooperate with the investigation

Any interim order was vacated, and the Registrar (Compliance) was directed to send the order to the court concerned for further proceedings in accordance with law