For Purposes Of Anticipatory Bail, No Difference Between Proclamation Issued U/S 82(1) Or 82(4) CrPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that for the purposes of an anticipatory bail, proclamation proceedings under Section 82 (1) and Section 82(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are similar in effect.Justice Subodh Abhyankar while adjudicating upon a pre-arrest bail plea, opined, "The general principle that appears is that for the purposes of an anticipatory bail, a proclaimed offender also includes an offender or a proclaimed person against whom a proclamation under 82(1) of Cr.P.C. has also been issued". In the instant case, proclamation proceedings had been initiated against the Petitioner-accused under Section 82(1) of the CrPC. However, the petitioner had contended that the appropriate provision for proclaiming a person to be absconding is via Section 82(4) and not Section 82(1) of the CrPC. Further, since in the instant case the petitioner has been charged only with offences under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, the procedure for proclamation as specified under Section 82(4) of CrPC shall not be applicable to him. Observations: Refuting the contention of the petitioner that proclamation proceedings can only be initiated under Section 82(4) of the CrPC, the Court ruled that such proceedings can be initiated even under Section 82(1) of CrPC."So far as the contentions raised by Shri Rathi that an accused can be declared as proclaimed offender only in terms of s.82(4) of Cr.P.C. is concerned, this court does not find any merits in said claim, this is for the reasons that even when a proclamation is made u/s.82(1) of Cr.P.C., it is also a declaration that the accused has absconded and against whom a publication is made. The procedure adopted u/s.82(4) of Cr.P.C. is no different than the procedure adopted u/s.82(1) of CrP.C", the order read. Enumerating further on the distinction between the two provisions, the Court opined that under Section 82(4) CrPC the proclaimed absconder must have been charged only under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367,382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397,398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). For all these offences, the term of imprisonment has been prescribed to be upto 7 years and fine. Whereas, all other offences, other than those mentioned under Section 82(4) of CrPC, have a prescribed term of imprisonment up to 3 years and fine only. Justice Abhyankar placed reliance on the Supreme Court case of Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) to rule that there lies no substantive difference between Section 82(1) and Section 82(4) of CrPC and thus for the purpose of granting anticipatory bail, an absconding offender can be proclaimed under either of these two provisions. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition by refusing to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, directing him to surrender before the trial court within a period of one week. Case Title: Smt. Kantabai w/o Ashok Bhandari v. State of Madhya Pradesh Click Here To Read/Download Order

For Purposes Of Anticipatory Bail, No Difference Between Proclamation Issued U/S 82(1) Or 82(4) CrPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

For Purposes Of Anticipatory Bail, No Difference Between Proclamation Issued U/S 82(1) Or 82(4) CrPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers