Anticipatory Bail Is Not Maintainable for Proclaimed Offenders Evading Investigation Without Plausible Justification

The applicant sought anticipatory bail regarding Case Crime No. 20 of 2026 under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant established a physical relationship with the victim on a false promise of marriage while concealing his existing marriage.

Upon confrontation, the applicant allegedly subjected the victim to mental cruelty and explicitly refused marriage, leading the victim to commit suicide on January 31, 2026.

Procedurally, the applicant previously failed to surrender despite a High Court direction in a writ petition.

Consequently, proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. (proclamation for person absconding) were initiated.

Although a subsequent court order stayed the Section 82 notice on the applicant's assurance of cooperation, police reports indicated he continued to evade the Investigating Officer.

1. Whether an applicant who has been declared a proclaimed offender or has evaded the process of law is entitled to the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.

2. Whether the lack of cooperation with the investigating agency and the defiance of previous judicial directions bar the maintainability of a pre-arrest bail plea.

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding anticipatory bail.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents of Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) and State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma, which establish that a "proclaimed offender" under Section 82 of the Code is generally not entitled to anticipatory bail.

It further applied Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, holding that while bail is a rule, anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly.

It applied Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, which emphasizes that courts cannot ignore the absconding status of an accused when considering such applications.

The Court observed that the applicant’s conduct placed him outside the "rare and exceptional" circumstances required for granting pre-arrest bail.

Despite multiple judicial interventions—including a dismissal of a writ petition with a direction to apply for regular bail and a stay on proclamation proceedings based on an assurance of cooperation—the applicant consistently failed to appear before the investigating officer.

The Court reasoned that the power under Section 482 BNSS is intended to safeguard individuals against unwarranted arrest, not to provide a shield for those "continuously defying orders and keep absconding".

By failing to offer a plausible justification for his non-cooperation and being subject to Section 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings, the applicant was deemed a "wilful defaulter" whose conduct directly conflicted with the law.

The Court answered both issues in the negative, stating that a wilful defaulter who evades the trial court and investigation is not entitled to judicial indulgence.

The application was accordingly rejected.