The power to grant pre-arrest bail is extraordinary in nature and can only be granted in exceptional cases. An accused person declared as a proclaimed person under Section 82 of the Code is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Bajaj, J. - Akhtar-complainant has filed this petition under Section 439 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to challenge the order dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure P-8), whereby Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh granted anticipatory bail to private respondent Nos.2 to 7, who were declared proclaimed persons on 08.07.2019 (Annexure P-3), in criminal complaint No.39 dated 01.03.2016, titled “Akhtar Vs. Nazar and others”.

Briefly the facts of the case are that upon a complaint given by Akhtar, a case FIR No.182 dated 23.11.2013 under Sections 148, 149, 365 and 377 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Nagina,

District Mewat against various accused persons, including the private respondents. The translated version of FIR as contained in the petition reads as under:-

“To SHO, P.S.Nagina Distt.Mewat, Subject: For kidnapping and confinement, Sir, it is requested that I, Akhtar s/o Suleman, R/o Jalalpur, Ferozepur(40), Mewat Mandikhera, District Nuh (Mewat), doing the work of agriculture, I have four sons and three daughters. My two sons namely Saleem and Salaudeen have got married to the daughters of Najar s/o Chaw Khan, R/o Vill.Nai. That my daughter in law Sajida wife of my elder son used to come our house after Gona and wife of Salaudeen has not come so far after the marriage. Infact, Sanjida is not liking my elder son Saleem. So, her parental relative want to finish this relationship. Yesterday on dated 18.09.2013 at about 2.00 PM my son along with his uncle Yunus were going to Barkali on motorcycle after taking medicine, then his in-laws came in Bolero Vehicle of white colour without number and were about 8 persons namely, Najar, his nephew Umar s/o Chaw Khan, Tarif s/o Umar, Rasid s/o Abdulah and three other persons to whom we can identify in case they came before us and putting their vehicle before bike at Pulia near Electricity Board and forcibly taken my son. On the spot, Isha s/o Shadi, R/o Jamalpur were cultivating his field adjacent to road and he seen all the incident. They have illegally detained my son in their village and Najar gave threatening at 4.40 from the mobile no.8607084282 of my son and said that bring Rs.2 lacs cash and article of my daughter and done divorce of my daughter otherwise you will have to see bad time. We tried to rescue my son on our level but they did not releasing thus it is requested that after registering case against the accused person and action be taken.”

After registration of above FIR, investigation in the alleged crime was conducted and upon completion a cancellation report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C was submitted before the Court of competent jurisdiction, but being dis-satisfied with the same, the petitioner filed a protest petition. Thereafter considering the pre summoning evidence and other documentary material on record, trial Court vide order dated 08.05.2017 (Annexure P-1), summoned private respondent Nos.2 to 7 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 365, 323 and 34 IPC, whereas qua accused Nos.8 and 9, Sanjida and Ruksar (both daughters of Nazar Ali) protest petition was dismissed. Further, the trial Court found no evidence regarding the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 377 IPC.

Aggrieved against the deletion of Section 377 IPC in the summoning order, the complainant preferred a criminal revision bearing No.49 of 2017 before Sessions Judge, Mewat and the same was accepted vide order dated 24.08.2017 (Annexure P-2) and the summoning order dated 08.05.2017 was modified by addition of Section 377 IPC qua accused Maksood, Rafik and Tarif (respondent Nos.4, 5 and 7, respectively).

Thereafter, during the trial proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur Jhirka accused, namely, Umar, Tarif, Rashid, Dillo, Maksood and Rafik (respondent Nos.2 to 7) failed to appear, and in order to secure their presence, the trial Court initiated proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C., who were finally declared proclaimed pers