Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is a matter of record that despite registration of the FIR and the Police having a power to arrest the petitioner in view of the FIR disclosing non-bailable offence, he has avoided his arrest and even failed to join the investigation. Despite issuance of non-bailable warrants against him he could not be arrested. Knowing full well about the initiation of proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. the petitioner even though moved an application through a counsel for cancellation of the proceedings but have not cared to appear before the Court concerned. However, in the present petition he has tried to put a brave face by submitting that they had been residing in Ghaziabad (written in hand in sub para 'F' and 'G') without any further details of their whereabouts. It is only when proclamation was issued against them that they filed an application through counsel for cancellation of the proceedings under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. without appearing in Court.

13. It is thereafter this matter has come up for hearing before this Court. Arguments were heard on 19.03.2009. The petitioner has also filed written submissions.

14. Having gone through the same and the record of this case I find that the petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings pending before the Trial Court regarding issuance of the proceeding under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner as he could not be arrested earlier despite issuance of non-bailable warrants. He moved an application for the first time for cancellation of NBW and staying the process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. only on 10.10.2007 i.e. after a period of 6 years of the registration of FIR. The only averment made in the said application was that he does not dispute identity but alleged that he was involved in a false case. He never moved an application for grant of bail including grant of anticipatory bail nor disclosed his correct address. As stated above, the application was dismissed by the Magistrate for the reason that the petitioner did not appear in the matter personally.

17. Since the non-bailable warrants also could not be executed, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 82/83 of Cr.P.C. It is only thereafter that the petitioner approached the trial Court for seeking revocation of the orders passed under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. but at that time also he did not appear personally before the concerned Court and appeared through counsel. On 17.10.2007 also an effort was made on behalf of the petitioner for recalling the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. on the ground that he could not appear earlier as he was unwell. However, the Court having come to a conclusion that the petitioner was intentionally avoiding the process of the Court dismissed the said application.

20. The aforesaid process nowhere takes away the right of the petitioner to file any application for bail. It is a different matter as to whether such kind of an accused can be allowed to apply by way of anticipatory bail or not. The said right would always depend upon the facts of each case and the conduct of the petitioner. It may be observed here that no right is vested in any accused to get the bail as a matter of right whether it is a regular bail or it is an anticipatory bail. Thus, issuance of process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. in no way can be considered to have caused any prejudice to the petitioner. The proclamation issued under Section 82/83 itself enables the accused to appear in the Court within 1 month of the proclamation for avoiding the process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. which permits the Court to even attach the property of the accused.