Libertatem Magazine

Karnataka HC: No Anticipatory Bail to Accused Who is ‘Absconding’ and is a ‘Proclaimed Offender’

Contents of this Page

The Karnataka High Court held that the accused, who is ‘absconding’ and declared as a ‘proclaimed offender’, can not be granted anticipatory bail. The Court said that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of the warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender according to Section 8(2) of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

Brief Facts of the Case 

In Chandru vs State Of Karnataka on December 4, 2020, the informant was working as Watcher in Social Forest Range, for five years. On 25.08.2012, he found the dead body of an unknown person with a rope tied to the neck. He also noticed that the dead body is of a lady and he suspected that she might have been killed by somebody and thrown the dead body to destroy the evidence of the commission of the offense. On the basis of this information, FIR came to be registered and an investigation was undertaken. It is stated that after due investigation, a charge sheet was filed against all the four accused persons including the present petitioner. The petitioner was seeking a grant of anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest for the offenses punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC on the basis of first information lodged by the informant – Sri Mahadevaiah.

Submission of the Petitioner 

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4. He was earlier granted bail subject to the conditions. But he could not appear before the trial Court for various reasons. In the meantime, accused Nos.1 and 2 have died and the case against them was abated. The trial against accused No.3 was conducted and he was acquitted. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no material as against the present petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No.4. He is ready and willing to appear before the trial Court and hence, he prayed to allow the petition.

Submission of the Respondent 

The learned HCGP opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner/accused No.4 of having committed the offenses under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. Initially, the petitioner was granted bail subject to the conditions. But the petitioner has not complied with the said conditions and the trial Court invoking Section 82 of Cr.P.C., issued a proclamation after noticing that the petitioner has absconded. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail by this Court.

Observation of the Court

At the initial stage, this petitioner was granted bail in the present case subject to conditions. It is also admitted that the petitioner has not appeared before the trial Court as directed by the Court while granting bail. It is also admitted that the proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is already issued and NBW is pending against the petitioner. Now the question arises as to whether at this stage, the petitioner once again can invoke Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in this regard. 

The decision of the Court 

The Court decided that the petitioner was already granted bail and he had not complied with the conditions imposed in the said order and the petitioner is already proclaimed as an absconding accused and NBW is issued against him. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. at that stage.

For the original Order of the Court – “Click here is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author