No Absolute Bar On Grant Of Anticipatory Bail Even If Accused Is 'Proclaimed Offender': Allahabad High Court

Relying heavily on the Supreme Court's 2024 decision in the case of Asha Dubey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 889, a bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by one Monika, a nurse by profession.

The Court noted that the applicant was "in family way" (pregnant) and had actually given birth to a child just days before the Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against her.

"…it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for grant of anticipatory bail as here in the present case at the time when certain processes were issued against the applicant she was in family way and was unable to appear before the court concerned, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail", the bench remarked.

The applicant was seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 316 (Causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide), 420 (Cheating), 504, 120-B of the IPC and relevant sections of the Medical Council Act.

The allegation against her was that she served as a nurse in a hospital where the alleged incident occurred.

At the outset, the counsel for the informant raised a preliminary objection. It was submitted that since a non-bailable warrant as well as a proclamation under Sections 82 & 83 CrPC had been issued against the applicant earlier, there was no occasion to entertain her anticipatory bail application.

Senior Advocate Gaurav Kakkar, appearing for the applicant, argued that the applicant was merely a midwife nurse working under the supervision of the co-accused and had no direct concern with the alleged incident.

Addressing the issue of the proclamation, the Senior Counsel submitted that the charge sheet was filed in November 2024 and cognizance was taken in May 2025.

However, when the NBW was issued on October 10, 2025, the applicant was "in family way" and had given birth to a male child on October 6, 2025.

It was argued that after cognizance stage, the applicant moved several applications on each and every date for exemption of her personal appearance as she was in family way and was unable to appear before the trial court, however, without considering the same, a non bailable warrant was issued against her.

Court's Order

On the specific issue of the bar on anticipatory bail for proclaimed offenders, the High Court relied heavily on the Asha Dubey verdict. The Court quoted the Supreme Court's observation:

"8. Coming to the consideration of anticipatory bail, in the event of the declaration under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for the grant of anticipatory bail. 9. When the liberty of the appellant is pitted against, this Court will have to see the circumstances of the case, nature of the offence and the background based on which such a proclamation was issued."

Applying this ratio to the facts at hand, the High Court noted that, in the present case, at the time specific processes were issued against her, she was in family way and unable to appear before the court concerned.

Thus, the HC found it fit to grant anticipatory bail. She was granted relief until the conclusion of the trial upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-, with two sureties each in the like amount.

Counsel for Applicant: Raghvendra Prakash, Sr. Advocate Gaurav Kakkar

Counsel for State: Babloo Pant, G.A.