Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: proclaim offender in Kapil Kumar vs State on 7 March, 2022Matching Fragments
9. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in CRL.M.C. 2053/2019, submits the impugned Order declaring the Petitioner as a Proclaimed Offender is bad in law as the offences against the Petitioner do not fall under the IPC Sections stipulated under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. He submits that there is a stark difference between declaring an individual as a Proclaimed Person under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. and declaring one as a Proclaimed Offender under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. as different consequences to the same are enumerated in Section 174A IPC. To substantiate this argument, Mr. Pahwa has relied upon Rishabh Sethi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (Petition No. 5767/2017) and Sanjay Bhandari v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018 SCC OnLine Del 10203). He submits that Section 174A IPC states that non-appearance with regard to a proclamation under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. entails imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and non-appearance with regard to a proclamation under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. entails imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years as well as a fine.
29. The Supreme Court has time and again considered the scope of granting relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. vis-à-vis a person who has been declared as an absconder or proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 Cr.P.C. In Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, the Supreme Court had held that is a person is "absconding" and has been declared as a "proclaimed offender", then he would not be entitled to anticipatory bail. The relevant portion of the judgement is as follows:
"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."
(emphasis supplied)
30. Relying upon Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court had reaffirmed in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171 that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 Cr.P.C., then he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. In this context, the judgement of Smt. Kantabai v. The State of Madhya Pradesh rendered by High Court of Madhya Pradesh and cited by the learned APP for the State before this Court has some weight as it states that for the purposes of anticipatory bail, a proclaimed offender includes an offender or a proclaimed person under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. This Court is in agreement with this judgment.