Allahabad HC Rejects Proclaimed Offender’s Anticipatory Bail Plea After He Ignored Court Process

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 197 of 2017, registered at Police Station Bhopa, District Muzaffar Nagar, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 and 120B IPC.

He claimed false implication and undertook to cooperate with the investigation and trial.

The State objected that proceedings under Section 82 CrPC/Section 84 BNSS had been initiated against him on 1 November 2021, before the anticipatory-bail application, and that he was not cooperating with the investigation. The Court recorded that the applicant had been declared a proclaimed offender.

Whether an anticipatory-bail application is ordinarily maintainable where the applicant has been declared a proclaimed offender and has not first challenged that declaration.

Whether the applicant’s circumstances constituted an exceptional case warranting anticipatory bail despite his proclaimed-offender status.

Section 482 BNSS (corresponding to Section 438 CrPC) confers an extraordinary power to grant anticipatory bail, to be exercised cautiously and sparingly, having regard to the accusation, risk of flight and other relevant circumstances (P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement).

Under Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, an accused who is absconding and has been declared a proclaimed offender is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar cautions against granting anticipatory bail while ignoring proceedings under Sections 82–83 CrPC.

Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar reiterates that a person against whom a warrant or proclamation has issued is ordinarily not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power, though relief may remain possible in an extreme or exceptional case.

State of Haryana v. Dharamraj confirms that a proclaimed offender must first successfully challenge that status before seeking anticipatory bail, subject to the possibility of relief in an exceptional and rare case.

The Court found that proceedings under Section 82 CrPC/Section 84 BNSS had been initiated before the anticipatory-bail application and that the applicant had been declared a proclaimed offender.

Applying the cited authorities, it held that an applicant who has avoided the court process and failed to cooperate is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail. Although exceptional relief may be available in a rare case, the applicant’s conduct did not disclose circumstances sufficient to bring his case within that exception.

It declared the application not maintainable and rejected it.