1. These are three petitions for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner Daya Ram is the father-in-law, Deepa Devi is the mother-in-law and Jagdish is the brother-in-law of the deceased Savita, who was married to Purshottam on 13th April, 2006 and who committed suicide on 31st May, 2009, within 7 years of her marriage.

2. Prakash, brother-in-law of the deceased Savita was granted anticipatory bail by this court on 11.12.2009.

3. As per the status report filed by the respondent, the evidence collected during investigation shows that the deceased Savita was physically and mentally tortured by the petitioners as well as her husband. It has been further stated in the status report that during the course of investigation raids were conducted but all of them are absconding and concealing themselves deliberately in order to avoid investigation and arrest. The bail application of the petitioners have already been dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

4. During the course of arguments, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor placed on record the photocopy of the process issued by Shri J.P. Nahar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi against the petitioners Deepa Devi, Daya Ram and Jagdish under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The report of the process server shows that after public proclamation, one copy of the process was affixed on the spot and another copy was affixed on the notice board of Tis Hazari Courts. One copy of the process was also affixed at the gate of ISBT, Kashmiri Gate. The learned MM had also directed that the process issued against the petitioner under section 82 of Cr.PC be also executed by way of publication in English and Hindi national newspapers. Though the copy of the newspaper publishing proclamation has not been placed on record, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on instructions from the Investigating Officer who was present in the court, stated that the proclamation has been duly published in the newspaper in terms of the order of the learned MM. A copy of the order issued by the office of the Commissioner of Police, Delhi seeking publication of proclamation in Times of India and Amar Ujala has also been placed on record. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners disputed the issue and publication of the process under section 82 of Cr.PC, considering the documents filed by the prosecution, I do not see any reason to disbelieve the statement made by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on instructions from the IO. I am, therefore, satisfied that a process under section 82 of Cr.PC was issued against the petitioners.

5. In my view, a person who is absconding despite rejection of his application for anticipatory bail by the court of Sessions and despite issue and publication of process against him under section 82 of Cr.PC, is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail save in an exceptional case, justifying departure from this principle. But for existence of peculiar and special facts and circumstances of a given case, the Court would not be justified in considering the anticipatory bail application of such a person on merits. A person who is found to be absconding, ordinarily, is not entitled to grant of such a discretionary relief. He must surrender before the concerned court and seek regular bail. If anticipatory bail is granted to a person who is evading the process of law by absconding, despite rejection of his petition for grant of anticipatory bail and publication of proclamation against him under section 82 of Cr.PC, that would encourage the criminals to go underground, evade the process of law by adopting dubious means.

6. In Jagtar Singh vs. Satendra Kaur 2002(6) Scale, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that normally when the accused are absconding, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail or regular bail. In State of Maharashtra vs. Mohd. Sajid Hussain 2008(1) SCC (Crl.) 176, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining the principles governing grant of ant