Proclaimed offenders ordinarily cannot obtain anticipatory bail absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail in Complaint Case No. 6912 of 2012, involving allegations under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 427, 376 and 392 IPC.

They claimed innocence and undertook to cooperate with the investigation and trial.

The State opposed the application, contending that proceedings under Section 82 CrPC/Section 84 BNSS had been initiated against them before the application was filed and that they were not cooperating or appearing before the investigating officer

The Court recorded that the applicants had been declared proclaimed offenders in connection with the case before filing the application

1. Whether an anticipatory-bail application is maintainable where the applicants have been declared proclaimed offenders before filing it

2. Whether the applicants’ case warranted the exceptional exercise of the Court’s power to grant anticipatory bail despite their proclaimed-offender status

Under *Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi*, (2012) 8 SCC 730) and *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma*, (2014) 2 SCC 171, an accused who is absconding and declared a proclaimed offender ordinarily is 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 are a material consideration and that an accused ordinarily must first successfully challenge the order declaring them a proclaimed offender; relief may nevertheless be considered in an exceptional case

*Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar*, (2024) 12 SCC 382, characterises anticipatory bail as an extraordinary discretionary power and states that a person against whom a warrant or proclamation has issued is not entitled to invoke it as a rule, though exceptional cases remain possible

The Court also relied on *P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement*, (2019) 9 SCC 24, for the principle that anticipatory bail is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases

The Court found that proceedings under Section 82 CrPC/Section 84 BNSS had been initiated and the applicants declared proclaimed offenders before they sought anticipatory bail

Applying the cited authorities, it held that an applicant’s abscondence and failure to submit to court process ordinarily preclude anticipatory bail, subject only to a rare and exceptional case

The applicants’ deliberate disregard of the process, coupled with their failure to cooperate with the investigation or trial, did not disclose any legal or plausible justification for their conduct or any exceptional circumstance warranting relief

The application was rejected