Can grant anticipatory bail to proclaimed offender: Punjab and Haryana HC

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, July 11

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that there was no restriction on the filing of an anticipatory bail plea by a proclaimed offender (PO). The ruling by Justice Anoop Chitkara of the High Court came in a case where the plea was opposed by the State counsel on the ground that anticipatory bail could not be granted to a proclaimed offender in view of the judicial pronouncements.

No riders under Section 82

Section 82 of the CrPC neither creates any riders nor imposes any restrictions in the filing of anticipatory bails by the proclaimed offenders. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Punjab & Haryana HC

The matter was brought to Justice Chitkara’s notice after a PO moved the High Court, apprehending arrest in a case alleging grievous injury and other offences registered on July 31, 2020, at the Badshapur police station in Gurugram district under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 341, 342 and 427 of the IPC.

Appearing before Justice Chitkara’s Bench, his counsel contended that the assailants were not previously known to the victim and the petitioner had been falsely roped in. The counsel added that the petitioner had no knowledge about him being an accused in the case.

He was neither served, nor intimated regarding his alleged role in the case. He was also not intimated regarding the presentation of challan or the final investigation report and was, subsequently, declared an offender “without effecting service upon him”.

After hearing rival contentions and going through the documents, Justice Chitkara asserted that the petitioner had offered a satisfactory explanation for his absence before the trial court and his being declared a PO.

Quoting the Supreme Court judgment in the case of “Lavesh versus State (NCT of Delhi)”, Justice Chitkara observed that there was no question of granting anticipatory bail “normally” when the accused was absconding and declared a PO. Justice Chitkara added that the crux of the judgment in Lavesh’s case was in the expression “normally” and when the accused absconded or concealed himself to avoid the execution of the warrant.

Justice Chitkara further asserted: “Section 82 of the CrPC neither creates any riders nor imposes any restrictions in the filing of anticipatory bails by the POs. Even in Lavesh vs State (NCT of Delhi), while laying down the law on anticipatory bails to absconders, the Supreme Court structured the pronouncement by the words ‘normally’”.

Justice Chitkara added that a balanced approach would work as an incentive and a catalyst for the POs to surrender to the Court of Law, speeding up the process and bringing the “guilty to justice and justice to the guilty”.

Before parting with the case, Justice Chitkara added that the petitioner had made out a case for anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions in the facts and circumstances peculiar to the case and for the reasons mentioned in the order.