- The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana HC, in the case of Mamta Giri vs. State of UT Chandigarh has held that nothing contained in section 82 CrPC will bar a proclaimed offender to file an application seeking anticipatory bail, if he could satisfy the Court that he had cogent reasons for not being able to be present in Court.
- In the instant case, an FIR was registered against the accused under sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. She had repeatedly missed attending the Court citing multiple reasons, from having a fever to a miscommunication between her and her lawyer. On the last date, she was not only unaware of the NBW (non- bailable warrant) against her but she was also down with a fever.
- The HC relied on various judgements of the Hon’ble SC while coming to a decision. In the case of Lavesh vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2012)SCC the Apex Court held that normally, when an accused is absconding or is declared a proclaimed offender, granting him anticipatory bail does not arise. The word that the Court has emphasised upon is normally. But in the case at hand, the accused had given sufficient reasons for her non appearance in Court.
- The Hon’ble HC also relied upon various cases like Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar, Vipan Kumar Dhir vs State of Punjab and anr, among others, to state that in these cases, the offences that were complained of were heinous in character and hence the question of granting anticipatory bail does not arise.
- Thus, the Court held that if the offence committed was punishable with less than seven years, is bailable and not heinous and the accused, who is a first time offender, had given sufficient cause for his non- attendance in Court, then he will not be barred from seeking an anticipatory bail only on the ground that he has been declared as a proclaimed offender.
- The Court also relied upon the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble SC in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar wherein the Court directed that the State Governments to instruct their police officers to not automatically arrest the accused when the offence complained of is punishable with imprisonment of a term less than 7 years.
- Thus, in light of the aforesaid contentions, the plea for anticipatory bail was granted.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
