{"id":238130,"date":"2020-10-28T19:00:54","date_gmt":"2020-10-28T13:30:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=238130"},"modified":"2020-11-06T12:09:39","modified_gmt":"2020-11-06T06:39:39","slug":"hp-hc-court-discusses-legal-position-of-anticipatory-bail-in-cases-where-accused-is-a-proclaimed-offender-petition-allowed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/28\/hp-hc-court-discusses-legal-position-of-anticipatory-bail-in-cases-where-accused-is-a-proclaimed-offender-petition-allowed\/","title":{"rendered":"HP HC | Court discusses legal position of anticipatory bail in cases where accused is a \u2018proclaimed offender\u2019; Petition allowed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Himachal Pradesh High Court: <\/strong>Anoop Chitkara J., considering the peculiar facts of the present case, allows anticipatory bail to a proclaimed offender, imposing several conditions.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Brief Facts<\/strong><\/p>\n

On the allegations made by a girl, aged 15 years, against the petitioner of having coitus with her at the end of May 2013, by entering her home and also committing rape on her in the forest on 30-06-2013, when she was returning from school, the police registered FIR dated 19-07-2013, under Sections 376, 506 of the Penal Code, 1860, and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, disclosing cognizable and non-bailable offences.<\/p>\n

The police conducted the investigation, took the victim for her medical examination, got her statement recorded under S. 164 CrPC, but failed to nab the accused. Subsequently, the police filed a charge sheet without arresting the accused. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Court issued Non-bailable Warrants (NBW) and upon its non-execution, allowed the application of the prosecution and proceeded against the accused under Section 82 CrPC, declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender. It is to be noted that the contents of the bail petition and the status report do not reveal any criminal history.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the petitioner<\/strong><\/p>\n

Abhilasha Kaundal, Counsel for the petitioner contends that incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioner and family. Further, the conduct of the accused applicant must be taken into account as much as, being declared a proclaimed offender, the petitioner voluntarily approached this Court by filing a petition for anticipatory bail. Accused explains that he and the victim were in love, and to make out an exceptional case, further states that on noticing that the girl had an affair with one Jyoti Prakash, he became melancholic and left for a distant place, far away from her. Accused further contends that due to the Lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic, he was forced to return home and got information that an FIR was lodged against him, and that he is a proclaimed offender.<\/em><\/p>\n

Counsel for the respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n

While opposing the bail, Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate General contended that an absconder whom the Court has declared as a proclaimed offender has no legal rights to file an application under Section 438 CrPC.<\/p>\n

Opinion of the Amicus<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ashok Tyagi, Amicus Curiae carved out a distinction in the pronouncements of Supreme Court and states that this Court has the jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail, in peculiar facts, even to a proclaimed offender.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Observations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Court, in addition to its decision, cited the following cases;<\/p>\n