The Apex Court, while setting aside the order of High Court, made an observation that an absconder or a proclaimed offender, against whom proceedings have been initiated, is not entitled to a relief of anticipatory bail.
The procedural history of this case has its traces in Trial Court’s order which dismissed the anticipatory bail application on similar grounds. The trial court denied the anticipatory bail to accused as proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had already been issued.
Thereafter, the accused approached the High Court which allowed the application. Aggrieved by the order of High Court, the state approached the apex court and placed reliance on the verdict of State of Madhya Pradesh v Pradeep Sharma.
The counsel contended that the person, against whom proclamation has been issued and the proceedings under above mentioned sections have been initiated, does not stand entitled to the benefit of relief under anticipatory bail.
The court accepted the contention of the counsel and noted that the High Court missed out on the facts which stated that the proceedings had already begun under Sections 82 and 83 of CrPC.
The court allowed the appeal and observed that what matters the most is the nature of allegations and accusations, and not that the nature of accusation arising out of a business transaction.
Leave a Reply