Anticipatory bail pendency does not stop proclamation proceedings when no interim protection exists and accused keep evading process.

Pendency of an anticipatory bail application, without any interim protection, does not bar the trial court from proceeding with proclamation and related coercive steps under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after an unexecuted warrant. Mere filing of such an application is not appearance before the court and cannot stall lawful process. Accused persons who continue to remain absent despite summons, warrants and proclamation, and who do not take timely steps to secure regular bail or challenge the coercive process, may be treated as avoiding the court; anticipatory bail is not available to them as a matter of right.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the pendency of an application for anticipatory bail, in the absence of any interim protection, bars the trial court from issuing or proceeding with proclamation and consequential steps under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether accused persons who remain absent despite summons, warrants and proclamation are entitled to anticipatory bail.

Issue (i): Whether the pendency of an application for anticipatory bail, in the absence of any interim protection, bars the trial court from issuing or proceeding with proclamation and consequential steps under sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The extraordinary power under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not create a statutory restraint on the trial court's authority to proceed under section 82 when a warrant has already been issued and remains unexecuted. The mere filing or pendency of an anticipatory bail application does not amount to appearance before the court, and it cannot be used as a device to stall lawful process. In the absence of an interim order of protection, the court is not obliged to keep the proceedings in abeyance, and proclamation under section 82 and further action under section 83 may validly continue in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The answer is in the negative. Pendency of the anticipatory bail application, by itself and without interim protection, does not bar proclamation proceedings or steps under sections 82 and 83.

Issue (ii): Whether accused persons who remain absent despite summons, warrants and proclamation are entitled to anticipatory bail.

Analysis: The record showed continued non-appearance after summons, bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants and proclamation, along with a failure to take timely legal steps to secure regular bail or challenge the coercive process. The Court treated such conduct as defiance of lawful orders and as conduct consistent with absconding. In such circumstances, anticipatory bail, which is meant for exceptional cases, cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially where the accused have knowingly avoided the process of court.

Conclusion: The accused are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the impugned refusal of pre-arrest bail was justified on the facts and in law, and the coercive process initiated by the trial court was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of interim protection, the pendency of an anticipatory bail application does not prevent the trial court from proceeding with proclamation and related coercive steps under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and an accused who persistently avoids summons and warrants is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

---