Allahabad HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail For Applicants Declared Proclaimed Offenders Before Filing Their Plea

The applicants sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 460 of 2023, registered under Sections 306 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.

The State and informant opposed the application, contending that proceedings under Section 82 CrPC/Section 84 BNSS had been initiated on 9 February 2026 and proceedings under Section 83 CrPC on 23 March 2026, before the application was filed, and that the applicants were not cooperating with the investigation.

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

Whether an anticipatory-bail application is ordinarily maintainable where the applicants have been declared proclaimed offenders after proclamation proceedings were initiated before the application was filed.

Whether the circumstances presented by the applicants constituted an exceptional case warranting anticipatory bail despite their proclaimed-offender status.

Under Section 482 BNSS (formerly Section 438 CrPC), anticipatory bail is an extraordinary, discretionary remedy and is not granted as a matter of course.

Applying Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi, (2012) 8 SCC 730) and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, the Court stated that 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, and State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1085, reinforce that proclamation proceedings cannot be casually disregarded; although an exceptional and rare case may warrant relief, the applicant must establish such circumstances.

Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, (2024) 12 SCC 382, likewise cautions that anticipatory bail is exceptional and ordinarily unavailable once a warrant or proclamation has issued, particularly where the applicant continues to evade process.

The Court found that the proclamation and attachment proceedings had been initiated before the applicants filed their application and that they had been declared proclaimed offenders.

It treated their failure to respond to court process and cooperate with the investigation as conduct bringing them within the rule in the cited Supreme Court authorities.

The applicants had not shown a rare or exceptional circumstance that could justify departure from the ordinary rule; the Court therefore held that their conduct defeated their claim to anticipatory-bail relief.

The Court rejected the application, describing it as not maintainable in the circumstances and, in any event, not a fit case for relief.