Anticipatory bail and proclamation proceedings: Section 82 bar applies only after valid proclaimed-offender declaration.

Anticipatory bail is not barred merely because proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC have been initiated; the bar applies only after a valid declaration as a proclaimed offender, supported by due publication. As the record did not show compliance with the statutory publication requirements, the applicant had not reached that stage. The respondent's contrary precedent was distinguished because it involved an already declared proclaimed offender who was absconding. On merits, the alleged Customs Act offence carried a maximum punishment of three years and was described as non-cognizable and bailable; delay in lodging the FIR, absence of criminal history, the applicant's non-public servant status, and parity with a co-accused supported grant of anticipatory bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail was barred on the ground that proclamation proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had been initiated, and whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail on the merits of the case.

Analysis: The bar against anticipatory bail arising from proclamation proceedings applies when the accused has been duly declared a proclaimed offender. Here, the record did not show that the proclamation had been published in the manner required by law or that the necessary statement of due publication had been made, so the stage of declaration as a proclaimed offender had not been reached. The decision relied upon by the respondent was distinguished on its facts because that case involved an accused already declared a proclaimed offender and absconding. On merits, the alleged recovery related to an offence under the Customs Act, 1962 carrying a maximum punishment of three years, with the offence described as non-cognizable and bailable. The delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of criminal history, the applicant not being a public servant, and parity with a co-accused who had been granted anticipatory bail supported relief.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected and anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant.

---