Anticipatory Bail Plea Is Maintainable Even If Absconding Proclamation Is Issued Against Accused: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has held that proceedings under Sections 82 (Proclamation for person absconding) and 83 (Attachment of property of person absconding) CrPC (Sections 84 and 85 of the BNSS) do not create an absolute bar on filing an anticipatory bail petition.For context Section 82 CrPC states if any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.Section 83 states that the Court issuing a proclamation under section 82 may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, at any time after the issue of the proclamation, order the attachment of any property, movable or immovable, or both, belonging to the proclaimed person. Justice Jitendra Kumar observed that, “the anticipatory bail petition of a Petitioner facing accusation is maintainable, even if the proceeding under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC/Sections 84 and 85 B.N.S.S, have been initiated against him. However, grant or rejection of anticipatory bail would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case.”The case was that petitioners, along with co-accused Kedar Mahto, caused injury by iron rod, knife and spade to the mother of the informant in the field, leading to her death at the hospital after ten days. The petitioners, however, claimed false implication, arguing that allegation as made against the petitioners is general and omnibus in nature. There is no specific allegation who caused what injury to the alleged victim.They also pointed out that they had lodged a case on the very day of the occurrence against the informant's side for attempt to murder and allied offences.The State opposed bail, arguing that proclamation proceedings had been initiated.Justice Kumar referred to Supreme Court rulings including Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) ( (2012) 8 SCC 730 ) where it was held: “Normally, when the accused is 'absconding' and declared as a 'proclaimed offender', there is no question of granting anticipatory bail.” He also cited Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar ((2021) SCC Online SC 955), State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171), Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra ( (2022) 8 SCC 282), and State of Haryana v. Dharamraj (State of Haryana Vs. Dharamraj, (2023) 17 SCC 510), which reiterated that proclaimed offenders are ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail.At the same time, the Court relied on Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh where the Supreme Court held: “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. 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.”The high court noted that there is case and counter case between the informant and the petitioner/accused side. The petitioners had lodged a case for attempt to murder on the very day of the incident, while the informant of the present case has lodged the case after ten days of the same occurrence. Though the informant's mother later died, the Court observed that “serious injury has been received on the side of petitioners also including injury on head and the FIR has been registered for attempt to murder, and allied sections of the BNS.”The Court further held that proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC/Sections 84 and 85, BNSS have been taken against the petitioners during the pendency of their anticipatory bail petition before the District Court as well as the high court. Hence, the Petitioners could not be held to be evading arrest. Finally, granting anticipatory bail the high court said, “Considering the case and counter case, injuries on both sides and clean antecedents of the petitioners as well as lack of specific allegation against any of them, this petition is allowed.” The court said that in the event the petitioners are arrested they will be released on bail on bonds of ₹10,000 each with two sureties, subject to certain conditions.Case Title: Mangali Devi & Ors v. The State of BiharCase No.CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33213 of 2025Counsels: For the Petitioners: Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, Advocate For the State: Mr. Upendra Kumar, APPClick Here To Read/Download Order

Anticipatory Bail Plea Is Maintainable Even If Absconding Proclamation Is Issued Against Accused: Patna High Court

Rizmi Lia

Tags