SRIKANT UPADHYAY VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR, Citation: 2024 (SC) 232
The dispute is related to the non-appearance of the accused/appellant before the trial court despite the issuance of summons, bailable warrant, non-bailable warrant and then proclamation under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. After defying the order of summons, the court issued the bailable warrant, and thereafter the non-bailable warrant to secure the presence of the accused before the court. However, when the non-bailable warrant didn't succeed in securing the accused presence, the court ultimately issued a proclamation by declaring the accused as proclaimed offender.
Criminal Appeal preferred by the Appellant/Accused against the Judgment of the High Court which had denied the pre-arrest/anticipatory bail to the accused on the ground that the non-bailable warrant and the proclamation is issued against the accused for defying the lawful orders of the Trial Court and attempting to delay the proceedings.
Issue
Whether the Accused/Appellant would be entitled to anticipatory/pre-arrest bail despite the non-bailable warrant and proclamation is pending against him.
It was specifically pleaded by the Accused that the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. wouldn't have any effect on the accused as the application seeking anticipatory bail was filed before the issuance of the proclamation, and since the High Court should have granted the interim order protecting the arrest of the accused. However, rejecting such a contention the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any interim order, the pendency of an application for anticipatory bail shall not bar the Trial Court from issuing/proceeding with steps for proclamation and in taking steps under Section 83, Cr.PC, in accordance with law.
Thus, in this case the apex court stated that an accused would not be entitled to pre-arrest bail if the non-bailable warrant and the proclamation under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. is pending against him.
