Conduct of absconding and being declared a Proclaimed Offender precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant, a Junior Engineer with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), sought anticipatory bail regarding an FIR registered under Section 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

It is alleged that co-accused Lokesh demanded a bribe of ₹2,00,000 from a contractor, threatening demolition by the applicant if unpaid

On May 5, 2026, CBI conducted a trap where Lokesh and another co-accused were caught red-handed accepting the bribe on behalf of the applicant

The applicant subsequently absconded for over two months despite MCD notifying him of the investigation

Consequently, the Trial Court issued two Non-Bailable Warrants and declared him a Proclaimed Offender on July 1, 2026

Furthermore, the complainant alleged receiving threats from the applicant and his associates

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail despite being declared a Proclaimed Offender and having evaded investigation

2. Whether the status of the applicant as a public servant and the allegations of witness intimidation influence the discretionary exercise of granting bail

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding the power to grant anticipatory bail

It relied on the principles established in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Som Mittal v. Govt. of Karnataka, which mandate that Courts must exercise heightened caution and stringency when considering the grant of anticipatory bail

Additionally, the court considered Section 61(2) of the BNS and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, concerning criminal conspiracy and bribery by public servants

The court reasoned that while no physical recovery was made from the applicant, the red-handed apprehension of co-accused persons accepting money specifically on his behalf created a strong prima facie case

The applicant’s conduct was a decisive factor; he remained absconding for over two months despite clear notice from his employer (MCD) and the CBI

The court observed that the issuance of multiple Non-Bailable Warrants and the eventual declaration of the applicant as a Proclaimed Offender raised significant suspicion regarding his bona fides

The court emphasized that the applicant occupies a position of "significant importance and influence" as a public servant

The specific allegations of the complainant being pressurized and threatened post-FIR further militated against the grant of discretionary relief, as it suggested a risk of tampering with the investigation

The court held that the applicant’s prolonged evasion of the law, his status as a Proclaimed Offender, and the credible allegations of witness intimidation disentitled him to equitable relief under Section 482 of the BNSS

The court clarified that these observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not prejudice the main trial