Section 82 proclamation did not bar anticipatory bail where statutory publication was unproved and bail factors favoured relief.

A Section 82 CrPC proclamation does not bar consideration of a second anticipatory bail application unless the record shows due statutory publication and the required judicial statement. On the facts noted, the proclamation was not shown to have been validly completed, so the bail plea could still be examined on merits. The Court also noted the alleged recovery related to a bailable, non-cognizable Customs Act offence, the FIR was delayed, the applicant had no criminal history, and co-accused in similar circumstances had already received anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the existence and publication of a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 barred consideration of the second anticipatory bail application. (ii) Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the existence and publication of a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 barred consideration of the second anticipatory bail application.

Analysis: The record did not show compliance with the statutory steps for publication of proclamation and the requisite statement by the Court under Section 82. In the absence of material showing due publication in the prescribed manner, the proclamation could not operate as a bar to consideration of anticipatory bail on merits.

Conclusion: The bar under Section 82 was held not to preclude consideration of the anticipatory bail plea.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The alleged recovery related to a bailable and non-cognizable offence under the Customs Act, 1962 with a maximum punishment of up to three years. The FIR was lodged with unexplained delay, the applicant was not a public servant though offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were alleged, there was no criminal history, and co-accused in similar factual circumstances had already been granted anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant.

Final Conclusion: The application was accepted and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or appearance, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.

---