Punjab And Haryana High Court : Does Sec.82 Cr.P.Code Bar Filing Of Anticipatory Bail By A Proclaimed Offenders? High Court Says ‘NO’
Punjab And Haryana High Court : Does Sec.82 Cr.P.Code Bar Filing Of Anticipatory Bail By A Proclaimed Offenders? High Court Says ‘NO’
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed a Proclaimed Offender to file for an Anticipatory Bail.
The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara observed that the offence committed is punishable with less than seven years, is a bailable, non-heinous offence and the accused is a first-time offender who has established a fair ground for not being present in court, to the court's satisfaction, then mere fact that he/she has been a proclaimed offender will not bar him/her from filing for an Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
The petitioner-accused was charged with Sections 297, 337 and 338 of the IPC and was declared as a proclaimed offender on account of missing Court hearings on several occasions.
The Court referred to SC Ruling in Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2012, SC wherein the Supreme Court held that 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 Cr.P.C is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail.
It also mentioned State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma, 2013, SC wherein the Supreme Court placing reliance upon Lavesh v. State, held that it is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82of Cr.P.C, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
In Vipan Kumar Dhir Vs. State of Punjab, 2021, SC wherein the gravity of offences were extremely heinous. Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered cumulative factors while rejecting bail.
The Court noted that Section 82 of Cr.P.C 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), 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 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.
The petitioner was thus allowed to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond and one surety bond. An alternate to fixed deposit has also been provided and total discretion was given to applicant to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposit.
