Jaunpur Drug-Case Accused Declared Proclaimed Offenders Denied Anticipatory Bail For Ignoring Court Process: Allahabad HC

The applicants sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 354 of 2025, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur, for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of the BNS, and Sections 21(c), 27(a) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

They claimed false implication and undertook to cooperate with the investigation.

The State objected that proceedings under Section 82 CrPC/Section 84 BNSS had been initiated against them on 1 June 2026, before the anticipatory-bail application, and that they were not cooperating with the investigation.

The Court found that the applicants had been declared proclaimed offenders in connection with the case.

1. Whether the applicants, having been declared proclaimed offenders before filing their application, could maintain an application for anticipatory bail.

2. Whether the circumstances disclosed an exceptional or rare case warranting anticipatory bail despite the proclamation.

The Court considered the anticipatory-bail power under Section 482 BNSS, describing it as an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly and with caution, particularly where protection may impede investigation (P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement).

It relied on Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma and Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar for the general rule that an accused who is absconding and declared a proclaimed offender is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar likewise states that a person against whom a warrant or proclamation has issued ordinarily cannot invoke this extraordinary power, while preserving the possibility of relief in extreme, exceptional cases.

Under State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, an application by a proclaimed offender ordinarily should not be entertained unless exceptional circumstances justify relief.

The Court found that proclamation proceedings had commenced before the application was filed and that the applicants had been declared proclaimed offenders.

Applying the cited authorities, it treated their failure to respond to the Court’s process and their non-cooperation with the investigation as conduct that ordinarily disentitles an accused to anticipatory bail.

It found no exceptional or rare circumstances capable of displacing that rule; the applicants’ assertions of innocence and willingness to cooperate did not establish such a basis.

It rejected the application.