The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that in the case of anticipatory bail, the proclamation proceedings under Section 82 (1) and Section 82(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are similar and have no particular difference.
According to the facts of the case, proclamation proceedings had been initiated against the Petitioner, who had been accused under Section 82(1) of the CrPC. The Petitioner had had an FIR filed against him on allegations of serious financial irregularities committed during lending money to its members.
Arguments before the Court
The Petitioner had argued that the provision under which a person was proclaimed to be absconding was by Section 82(4) and not by Section 82(1) of the CrPC.
He submitted that as under Section 82(4) of CrPC, a proclaimed offender had to be charged under sections 302, 304, 364, 367,382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397,398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). The petitioner argued that since he had been charged with offences under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, the proclamation procedure under Section 82(4) did not apply to him.
Observations by the Court
The court refuted the contentions of the petitioner that proclamation proceedings can only be initiated under Section 82(4) of the CrPC. It held that such proceedings could be initiated even under Section 82(1) of CrPC:
“So far as the contentions raised by Shri Rathi that an accused can be declared as proclaimed offender only in terms of s.82(4) of CrPC. is concerned this court does not find any merits in the said claim.”
The court observed that Section 82(1) of CrPC was also a declaration stating that the accused has absconded and against whom a publication is made. The procedure adopted u/s.82(4) of CrPC is no different than the procedure adopted u/s.82(1) of CrPC”, the order read.
It also stated that while the offences under Section 82(4) had a term of imprisonment of 7 years and a fine, while all other offences other than the ones mentioned under clause 4 had a term of imprisonment of 3 years and a fine.
Justice Subodh Abhyankar relied on the case of Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) to order that there was no substantive difference between Section 82(1) and section 82(4) of CrPC and thus, an absconding offender can be proclaimed under withering of them.
The court stated: “The general principle that appears is that for an anticipatory bail, a proclaimed offender also includes an offender or a proclaimed person against whom a proclamation under 82(1) of CrPC has also been issued”.
Thus, the petition was disposed of by refusing to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and giving directions for his surrender within one week before the trial court.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also 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.