This court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. Regarding the petitioner not entitled as he is a proclaimed offender.
Petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; defects to be removed within one month failing which matter notice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15873 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2020 Thana- BARARI District- Katihar
====================================================== BALESHWAR PRASAD SINGH @ BALESHWAR PRASAD SON OF DEOSHARAN PRASAD SINGH @ DEOSHARAN PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GANIPUR, P.S.- HILSA, DISTRICT- NALANDA. PRESENTLY POSTED AT POLICE LINE KATIHAR, P.S.- KATIAHR SAHAYAK, DISTRICT- KATIHAR.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bimal Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. J.N.Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
10 02-08-2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 452, 341, 342, 323, 379, 384, 498, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Barari P.S.Case No. 288 of 2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that two accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by the court below, to which Mr. J.N.Thakur, learned APP for the State has submitted that the said accused persons who have been granted anticipatory bail were not the main accused, but the petitioner is the main accused with specific allegation against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15873 of 2021(10) dt.02-08-2022 2/3
him to commit rape upon the informant’s wife.
By order dated 22.06.2022, a report regarding initiation of process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was called for from the court below which has been received. From perusal of the report placed at Flag ‘E’, it appears that the process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the petitioner.
Since the process under Section 82 of the Code has been issued in this case against the petitioner and in view of the decision reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171, State of M.P. Vs. Pradeep Sharma , the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Paragraph no. 16 of the aforesaid decision is quoted hereinbelow:-
“16. Recently, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8SCC 730], this Court (of which both of us were parties) considered the scope of granting relief under Section 438 vis-a-vis a person who was declared as an absconder or proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code. In para 12, this Court held as under :(SCC p.733)
“12.From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and declared as “absconder”. Normally, when the accused is “absconding” and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15873 of 2021(10) dt.02-08-2022 3/3
declared as a ‘proclaimed offender’, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
It is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.”
In view of the aforesaid decision quoted hereinabove, the petitioner is not not entitled for privilege of anticipatory bail. His prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
Office shall ensure that all the defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
HR/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a person declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of CrPC is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
Whether the petitioner, being a main accused and requested process under Section 82 CrPC, is eligible for anticipatory bail.
Whether defects in the petition were cured within the stipulated time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of M.P. Vs. Pradeep SharmaExplained¶16
(2014) 2 SCC 171, State of M.P. Vs. Pradeep Sharma · Who else cites this
Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)Explained¶12
Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8SCC 730]
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Balleshwar Prasad Singh @ Balleshwar Prasad
The State of Bihar
Nawneet Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
