Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1442 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTSeeking grant of anticipatory bail - proclaimed offender - petitioner explains that she did not know the date fixed for the case, not because of any disregard to law but due to lack of communication from counsel and later on due to confusion of pandemic - Proclaimed Offender - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has offered a satisfactory explanation which led to the passing of orders under section 82 of CrPC and her being declared a proclaimed offender. In LAVESH VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [2012 (8) TMI 1190 - SUPREME COURT] Hon'ble Supreme Court held Normally, when the accused is "absconding" and declared as a "proclaimed offender", there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail. Section 82 of CrPC neither creates any riders nor imposes any restrictions in the filing of anticipatory bails by the proclaimed offenders. Even in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), while laying down the law on anticipatory bails to absconders, Hon'ble Supreme Court structured the pronouncement by the words, "Normally." An analysis of entire allegations creates a possibility of the accused - Resultantly, the facts and circumstances are not normal. Thus, the circumstances cannot be termed as normal for the accused, and she makes out a special case for bail. A balanced approach would work as an incentive, a catalyst for proclaimed offenders to surrender to the Court of Law, speeding up the process, and bringing the guilty to Justice and Justice to the guilty. In the present case, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years. Thus, directions passed in ARNESH KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR [2014 (7) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT], apply to this petition, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to arrest the accused automatically when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner makes a case for anticipatory bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the case, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Ten Thousand only, and furnishing one surety for Rs. Twenty-Five thousand only, to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigator. Before accepting the sureties, the concerned officer must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in Court, then such surety is capable of producing the petitioner before the Court - In the alternative, the petitioner may furnish a personal bond of Rs. Ten Thousand only, and hand over to the attesting officer, a fixed deposit(s) for Rs. Ten Thousand only, made in favour of Chief Judicial Magistrate of the concerned district. Petition allowed.
|