Section 82 proclamation not an absolute bar to anticipatory bail where special facts justify relief

Section 82 proclamation does not operate as an absolute bar to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC where the facts justify a departure from the normal rule. The HC treated the usual objection against relief to a proclaimed offender as qualified by the word "normally", and noted that the accused was a woman, a first offender, the alleged offences were bailable, and non-appearance was explained by communication gaps and pandemic-related difficulty. It also noted that the maximum punishment did not exceed seven years, supporting restraint against automatic arrest. Anticipatory bail was granted subject to terms and conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be granted to an accused who had been declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Code, where the offences were bailable and the surrounding facts justified a departure from the normal rule against granting such relief.

Analysis: The Court noted that the broad observations in the precedent on proclaimed offenders were qualified by the word "normally" and were directed at cases where the accused was absconding or concealing himself to avoid execution of process. It further considered that the petitioner was a woman, a first offender, the offences alleged were bailable, and the explanation for non-appearance disclosed lack of communication and pandemic-related difficulties. The Court treated the declaration under Section 82 as relevant but not an absolute bar, and held that the facts created a special situation where a balanced approach was warranted. It also noticed that the maximum punishment for the offences did not exceed seven years, attracting the restraint against automatic arrest.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, subject to the stated terms and conditions, notwithstanding her status as a proclaimed offender.

---