The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the gravity of the offences, the conduct of the accused, and the special provisions for women under the law in determining the grant of anticipatory bail to a proclaimed offender.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 Cr.PC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that all the offences are bailable.

3. The contention on behalf of the State is that given the judicial pronouncements, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to a proclaimed offender.

REASONING:

4. The petitioner is a woman, she is a first offender, and all the offences are bailable.

5. The explanation offered by the petitioner is mentioned in paragraphs 5 to 10 of the petition, whichare extracted as follows:

“5. That the reason of the non- appearance of the accused had occurred because the accused was not aware of the said date due to the miscommunication with the then counsel of the accused and when it came to the knowledge of the accused it was impossible for her to appear in the court room as the accused was in Bikaner, Rajasthan as she had some family problems to attend to.

6. That on the next date i.e. 15.11.2019 neither the petitioner nor her surety had the knowledge regarding the NBW against her nor about the date the matter was fixed for hence the non-appearance. The order has been annexed herewith as Annexure P4.

7. That on 25.02.2020 too the Petitioner, still had no idea that the NBW were issued against her. The copy of the order has been annexed herewith as Annexure P5.

8. That on dates 09.06.2020, 10.08.2020, 02.12.2020 & 22.04.2021 due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and the orders of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court the Courts were not functioning hence the appearance of the accused/applicant would have been impossible. The annexures of the above mentioned orders have been annexed herewith as Annexure P6, Annexure P7, Annexure P8 & Annexure P9 respectively.

9. That on the last i.e. 8.09.2021 the applicant though of no knowledge about the station the applicant was also down with fever and hence traveling for 600Kms from Bikaner, Rajasthan to Chandigarh in fever would have been a mammoth task. The copy of the order has been annexed herewith as annexure Annexure P10.

10. That it was after this date i.e. 8.09.2021 the accused when enquired about her case got information and the seriousness of the case and hence the bail application is being filed by the Accused/applicant.”

6. The petitioner explains that she did not know the date fixed for the case, not because of any disregard to law but due to lack of communication from counsel and later on due to confusion of pandemic.

7. The petitioner has offered a satisfactory explanation which led to the passing of orders under section 82 of CrPC and her being declared a proclaimed offender.

8. In Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, (Para 10), Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

[10]. … 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 is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail.

9. The crux of Lavesh is in the expression ‘normally’ and when the accused absconds or conceals to avoid execution of warrant.

10. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, Para 10, Supreme Court placing reliance upon Lavesh v. State, held that it is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

11. In Pradeep, Hon’ble Supreme Court followed Lavesh and did not lay down any distinct ratio.

12. In Vip