Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 Cr.PC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that all the offences are bailable.

3. The contention on behalf of the State is that given the judicial pronouncements, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to a proclaimed offender.

REASONING:

4. The petitioner is a woman, she is a first offender, and all the offences are bailable.

5. The explanation offered by the petitioner is mentioned in paragraphs 5 to 10 of the petition, whichare extracted as follows:

6. The petitioner explains that she did not know the date fixed for the case, not because of any disregard to law but due to lack of communication from counsel and later on due to confusion of pandemic.

7. The petitioner has offered a satisfactory explanation which led to the passing of orders under section 82 of CrPC and her being declared a proclaimed offender.

8. In Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, (Para 10), Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [10]. ... Normally, when the accused is "absconding" and declared as a "proclaimed offender", there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail.

-xxx-

...Recently, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 730] , this Court (of which both of uswere parties) considered the scope of granting relief under Section 438 vis−à−vis a person who was declared as an absconder or proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code. In para 12, this Court held as under : (SCC p. 733) 12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as absconder. Normally, when the accused is absconding and declared as a proclaimed offender, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. It is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. Thus the High court has committed an error in granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 accused ignoring the proceedings under Section 82−83 of Cr.PC.

17. Section 82 of CrPC neither creates any riders nor imposes any restrictions in the filing of anticipatory bails by the proclaimed offenders. Even in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, (Para 10), while laying down the law on anticipatory bails to absconders, Hon'ble Supreme Court structured the pronouncement by the words, "Normally." An analysis of entire allegations creates a possibility of the accused ... Resultantly, the facts and circumstances are not normal.Thus, the circumstances cannot be termed as normal for the accused, and she makes out a special case for bail. A 5 of 8 CRM-M-3052-2022 balanced approach would work as an incentive, a catalyst for proclaimed offenders to surrender to the Court of Law, speeding up the process, and bringing the guilty to Justice and Justice to the guilty.