1. Focal question to be considered is whether an accused who was granted bail and thereafter while proceeding under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C.), he was declared absconded and standing warrant of arrest has been issued is entitled for privilege of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.

2. Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 187 of 2006, registered at Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 5/18, 49/192, 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act, the applicant has filed this application under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned First Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur by its order dated 25/08/2014 rejected the application of the applicant for grant of anticipatory bail holding that applicant has already been declared as absconder by order dated 03/09/2012, therefore, he is not entitled for privilege of anticipatory bail. Order dated 03/09/2012 reads as follows:-

03-09-2012 jkT; }kjk ,-Mh-ih-vksA

vkjksihx.k vuqifLFkrA

vkjksihx.k dks tkjh fxj- okjaV ven rkehy okil izkIrA

blh Lrj ij ,-Mh-ih-vks- us vfHk;qDr dh yxkrkj vuqifLFkfr dks ns[krs gq;s izdj.k esa /kkjk 299 na-iz-la- dh dk;Zokgh dj vkjksih ds fo:) LFkk;h fxj- okjaV tkjh fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

izdj.k fnukad 11&08&2006 ls yafcr gSA vkjksihx.k ds fo:) fnukad 11&10&2011 dks mldh vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k fxjrkjh okjaV tkjh djus vknsf’kr fd;k x;k FkkA rc ls vkjksihx.k fujarj vuqifLFkr gSA vkjksihx.k dh mifLFkfr lqfuf’pr djus gsrq vusd ckj fxj- okjaV tkjh fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq vkjksih dh mifLFkfr lqfuf’pr ugha gks ik jgh gSA vr% vfHk;kstu ds fuosnu ,oa izdj.k ds voyksdu i'pkr~ vkjksihx.k ds fo:) na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 299 dh dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k dks Qjkj ?kksf”kr fd;k tkrk gSA mlds fo:) LFkk;h fxjrkjh okjaV tkjh fd;k tkosA

izdj.k O;ofLFkr dj lqjf{kr j[ks gsrq vfHkys[kkxkj izsf”kr fd;k tkos ,ao izdj.k ds eq[k i`”B ij yky L;kgh ls ;g vafdr fd;k tkos fd ^^vkjksihx.k Qjkj gS vr% izdj.k lqjf{kr j[kk tkosA**

¼cyjke dqekj nsokaxu½

U;k- eftLVªsV izFke Js.kh] dksVk

4. Appearing for the applicant Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel would submit that though standing warrant of arrest has been issued against the applicant by the jurisdictional criminal Court yet, he is entitled to maintain an application under Section 438(1) of the Cr. P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in law and as such, issuance of standing warrant of arrest will not come in his way to claim privilege of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.

5. Appearing for the State Mr. Neeraj Pradhan, Panel Lawyer would submit that once the applicant has declared absconder by the learned Magistrate under Section 299 of the Cr. P.C. he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

6. Before considering the claim of the applicant, it is useful to refer Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. relating to grant of bail to a person who is apprehending arrest, which reads as follows:-

"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest – (1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely.

(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation.

(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence.

(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice.

(iv) Where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested.

Either reject the application fo