Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.—The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1, the sole petitioner after withdrawal of the petition on behalf of the petitioners no. 2 to 4; Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State and Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Anand Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The petitioner no. 1 apprehends arrest in connection with Bettiah Muffasil (Banuchhapar) PS Case No. 561 of 2019 dated 05.10.2019, instituted under Sections 406, 420, 380 and 120B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner, who is the wife of the informant is of concealing the fact of being already married and also taking huge amount of the informant which was not returned and thereafter that her brothers had abused and assaulted the informant and finally that the petitioner no. 1 and her other relatives had taken away jewellery worth Rs. 50 lakhs, Rs. 1 lakh cash and the son of the informant who is born to the petitioner no. 1, with them.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 submitted that the entire FIR is based on falsehood. It was submitted that it was the informant who was instrumental in the separation of the petitioner no. 1 from her first husband and, in fact, it was he who was pursuing the matter relating to her divorce. It was submitted that when the petitioner no. 1 had filed a case against her previous husband which was finally compromised on 17.01.2012. He submitted that thereafter the parties had separated and in fact, it was the informant who had assured the petitioner no. 1 that they could marry and to his full knowledge, the marriage was performed between the petitioner no. 1 and the informant on 26.07.2012. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner no. 1 had got, by way of alimony, about Rs. 7 lakhs from her previous husband and upon marriage, she had taken the money to the matrimonial home and the same was fully appropriated by the informant. Learned counsel submitted that continuously the demand for dowry/money kept on pouring from the informant and his relatives. It was submitted that later on, formal decree of divorce was also obtained between the petitioner no. 1 and her previous husband. Learned counsel submitted that on the previous occasion, an objection was raised by learned counsel for the informant with regard to maintainability of the present petition in view of processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) being issued against the accused, including the petitioner, in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, especially paragraph no. 10, which has clearly laid down that when the accused is ‘absconding’ and declared as ‘proclaimed offender’ there was no question of granting anticipatory bail. It was submitted that in the same stroke, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is ‘absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant’ and is declared as a ‘proclaimed offender’ in terms of Section 82 of the Code is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail.

6. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, the informant has filed a counter affidavit bringing on record the orders passed by the Court below which do not show that it has been held against the petitioner no. 1 that she is ‘concealing herself and absconding’ and further that she has not been declared a ‘proclaimed offender’. Learned counsel submitted that in the case which the petitioner no. 1 has filed against the informant and his family members, being Bettiah Muffasil PS Case No. 693 of 2019 dated 13.12.2019, the Investigating Officer of the present case and the said case is the same person. It w