Anticipatory Bail Application Does Not Prevent The Issuance Of A Proclamation Under Section 82 Of The Cr.P.C: Supreme Court

In its recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified that the pendency of an anticipatory bail application does not automatically prevent the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC if the accused is absconding and no interim protection is granted. The court emphasized that accused individuals consistently defying court orders and remaining absconding are not entitled to anticipatory bail. However, in exceptional cases in the interest of justice, pre-arrest bail may be granted. The ruling came in the context of a case where appellants were accused of various offenses and repeatedly failed to appear in court, leading to the dismissal of their anticipatory bail application by the Supreme Court.

The appellants were accused of offenses under Sections 341, 323, 354, 354 (B), 379, 504, 506, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witchcraft (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. After failing to appear in court on multiple occasions, non-bailable warrants were issued against the appellants. The appellants then filed an anticipatory bail application before the Patna High Court, which was dismissed. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC should not have been issued while their anticipatory bail application was pending.

While hearing a petition for anticipatory bail filed by appellants who are accused of concealing themselves from arrest, the High Court initially rejected the petition, noting the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.PC. The appellants' contention that they were not absconding and were merely exercising their right to seek anticipatory bail was rejected. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.PC does not bar consideration of an anticipatory bail application on its merits. However, the Court did not find grounds to interfere with the High Court's order in this case, given the appellants' repeated attempts to evade arrest.

The Supreme Court observed that “The factual narration made hereinbefore would reveal the consistent disobedience of the appellants to comply with the orders of the trial Court. They failed to appear before the Trial Court after the receipt of the summons, and then after the issuance of bailable warrants even when their co-accused, after the issuance of bailable warrants, applied and obtained regular bail.”

And further held that “The upshot of the discussion is that there is no ground for interfering with the order of the High Court rejecting the application for anticipatory bail rather not considering application on merits. Since their action is nothing short of defying the lawful orders of the Court and attempting to delay the proceedings, this appeal must fail.”

Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. Versus State of Bihar & Anr.
Coram: Justice C.T. Ravikumar & Justice Sanjay Kumar
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/24813/24813202313150151311Judgement14-Mar-2024.pdf