The nature of the alleged offences and the absence of adverse antecedents can be considered in determining eligibility for anticipatory bail.

ORDER

(Physical Hearing)

1. The status report has been submitted by the State.

2. Submissions have been made on behalf of either side.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case with it having been submitted to the effect that the other three co-accused in the matter are on bail and that there are no previous adverse antecedents against the applicant.

4. The State does not refute the aspect that the three other co-accused in the instant case namely Raja Battery @ Harbhajan Singh, Raju @ Raja and Neetu are on bail. The State further submits that as proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 having been initiated against the applicant and thus, in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr." in CRL.A.1209/2021, the applicant cannot be granted anticipatory bail.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant however, that the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr." in CRL.A.1209/2021 places reliance on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)", (2012) 8 SCC 730 wherein, it has been observed vide paragraph 12 thereof to the effect:

"12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as `absconder'. Normally, when the accused is `absconding' and declared as a `proclaimed offender', there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate 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 declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail."

and vide paragraph 16 therein, it has been categorically observed to the effect that if a person is declared a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

6. It has thus been submitted on behalf of the applicant that in the instant case the proceedings against the applicant have only been initiated under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and have not culminated into the applicant being declared a proclaimed offender.

7. Presently, this Court is not taking into account the aspect of the applicant having been declared a proclaimed offender or not in view of the factum that the allegations levelled against the applicant as per the status report relate to the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 384/388/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which do not fall within the ambit of Section 82(4) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and thus, in terms of the verdict of this Court in "Manoj Tandon Vs. State" in Crl.M.C.1961/2020, dated 25.11.2020, "Sanjay Bhandari vs. State" in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.223/2018 and in "Arun Kumar Parihar Vs. State (GOVT NCTD), 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2767" and taking into account the factum that there are no previous adverse antecedents against the applicant and all the three other co-accused in the matter are on bail, the applicant is allowed to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest on filing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with directions to the applicant to the effect that:

• she shall not leave the city;
• she shall join the investigation of the case as and when required by the Investigating Agency;
• she shall keep her mobile phone on at all times;
• she shall drop a PIN on the google map to ensure that her location is available to the Investigating Officer;
• she shall commit no offence whatsoever.

8. The application is disposed of accordingly.