Proclaimed Offender Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail Unless 'Rare & Exceptional' Case Made Out: Allahabad High Court

"…the law is discernible on the point that as per normal rule, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to an accused who is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of the process of the Court without offering any legal or plausible justification for his abscondence and consequently has been declared a proclaimed offender", a bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed.

The single judge thus dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by a man accused of abetting the suicide of a woman.

Case in brief

The victim had allegedly ended her life after discovering that the accused-applicant was already married and refused to marry her, despite having established a physical relationship with her on the promise of marriage.

According to the prosecution's case, the victim-woman confronted the applicant regarding his marital status. In response, the applicant threatened the victim with dire consequences and refused to marry her.

The applicant allegedly subjected the victim to continuous mental cruelty and he explicitly told her that he would not marry her regardless of the consequences.

As per the FIR, the victim committed suicide on January 31, 2026, after the applicant admitted that he had established a physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage.

Seeking anticipatory bail, the applicant contended before the High Court that no offence under Section 108 BNSS was made out as there was no intention on his part to instigate or aid the deceased to commit suicide.

He argued that it cannot be said that merely by breaking up the relationship with the deceased, he had intended to abet the deceased to commit suicide

The counsels appearing for the informant and the State opposed the plea by contending that the applicant had earlier approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, but was directed to surrender and seek regular bail.

However, instead of complying with the HC's order, he failed to appear before the Court, and hence, proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC were initiated.

Thereafter, he again approached the HC, wherein the proclamation proceedings were set aside on his assurance that he would cooperate with the concerned IO.

However, he continued to evade investigation, following which, proclamation proceedings were initiated again.

High Court's observations

Taking note of these facts, the Court observed that the applicant had failed to act in accordance with his own assurance to cooperate with the investigation and had deliberately remained out of reach of the investigating agency.

The bench said that his conduct fell within the scope of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Prem Shankar Prasad Versus State of Bihar and Another, LL 2021 SC 579, wherein it was held that an absconder/proclaimed offender is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.

Justice Singh also relied upon the 2012 judgment of the Supreme Court in Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), wherein it was normally held that when the accused is 'absconding' and declared a “proclaimed offender”, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail.

Similarly, the single judge also referred to the recent Supreme Court judgment in Srikant Upadhyay and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 232 and State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739

Thus, taking into account the applicant's “deliberate oblivion” of the court process, which deprived him of any claim that his case fell within the category of a “rare and exceptional case” warranting pre-arrest protection, the bench rejected his plea as not maintainable.