2024 (3) TMI 1364 - SC - Indian Laws

Rejection of the application for anticipatory bail without considering the application on merits for the reason of issuance of proclamation under Section 82, Cr. PC - HELD THAT - It is evident that for reasons best known to the appellants, subsequent to the filing of the final report in terms of the provisions under Section 173 (2), Cr.P.C in FIR No. 79/2020 and issuance of summons, issuance of bailable warrants and issuance of non-bailable warrants; pursuant to the failure of the appellants to appear before the Court on the date fixed for their appearance based on bailable warrants, they did not care to take any action in accordance with law except moving applications for bail. Same was the position even after the issuance of the proclamation under Section 82, Cr.PC. What is required as proof for absconding is the evidence to the effect that the person concerned was knowing that he was wanted and also about pendency of warrant of arrest. A detailed discussion is not warranted in this case to understand that the appellants were actually absconding. It is not in dispute that they were served with the summons . The fact that bailable warrants were issued against them on 12.04.2022 is also not disputed, as the appellants themselves have produced the order whereunder bailable warrants were issued against them. We have already referred to Section 70 (2), Cr. PC which would reveal the position that once a warrant is issued it would remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it or until its execution. There is no case for the appellants that either of such events had occurred in this case to make the warrants unenforceable. In view of the proviso under Section 438(1), Cr.PC, it cannot be contended that if, at the stage of taking up the matter for consideration, the Court is not rejecting the application, it is bound to pass an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail. The factual narration made 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. Though the appellants filed an application, which they themselves described as bail-cum-surrender application on 23.08.2022, they got it withdrawn on the fear of being arrested. Even after the issuance of nonbailable warrants on 03.11.2022 they did not care to appear before the Trial Court and did not apply for regular bail after its recalling. Thus, 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. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.PC affects the consideration of an anticipatory bail application on its merits.
2. Whether the pendency of an application for anticipatory bail bars the trial court from proceeding under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.PC.
3. Whether the appellants were entitled to anticipatory bail given their conduct and the legal circumstances.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Impact of Proclamation under Section 82 Cr.PC on Anticipatory Bail:

The judgment addressed whether the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.PC should affect the consideration of an anticipatory bail application on its merits. The court emphasized that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary and should be exercised only in exceptional cases. It was reiterated that when a person is declared an absconder or a proclaimed offender under Section 82, Cr.PC, they are not entitled to anticipatory bail. The court cited previous decisions, including *Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar* and *Pradeep Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh*, to support this position. The court found that the appellants were defying the authority of law by not appearing before the trial court despite the issuance of summons and warrants, and thus, they were not entitled to anticipatory bail.

2. Pendency of Anticipatory Bail Application and Proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC:

The court examined whether the pendency of an anticipatory bail application bars the trial court from proceeding with actions under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.PC. It was clarified that the mere filing of an anticipatory bail application does not prevent the trial court from issuing a proclamation or proceeding under Section 83, Cr.PC, in the absence of any interim protection. The court noted that there is no statutory inhibition for arrest during the pendency of an anticipatory bail application if no interim order is passed. The judgment referenced the decision in *Shrenik Jayantilal Jain v. State of Maharashtra*, which supported the view that the trial court can proceed with legal actions despite the pendency of an anticipatory bail application.

3. Entitlement to Anticipatory Bail Based on Conduct:

The court assessed whether the appellants were entitled to anticipatory bail given their conduct and the legal circumstances. The appellants had consistently failed to appear before the trial court after receiving summons and warrants, and they withdrew a bail-cum-surrender application fearing arrest. The court observed that the appellants' conduct demonstrated defiance of the court's orders and an attempt to delay proceedings. The judgment concluded that the appellants' actions amounted to defying lawful orders and attempting to evade the legal process, which disqualified them from seeking anticipatory bail. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to reject the anticipatory bail application.

In summary, the judgment reinforced the principle that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, not to be granted as a matter of course, particularly when the accused is evading the legal process and has been declared an absconder under Section 82, Cr.PC. The court's decision highlighted the importance of compliance with legal processes and the limited scope for anticipatory bail in such circumstances.