The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the gravity of the offences, the conduct of the accused, and the possibility of fleeing from justice in determining the eligibility for anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438(2) read with 482 Cr.PC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that assailants were not previously known to the victim and the petitioner has been falsely roped in.

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 explanation offered by the petitioner is mentioned in paragraph 6 of the petition, whichare extracted as follows:

'That the petitioner had no knowledge about him being accused in this case. The petitioner was neither served nor any intimation with regard to his any alleged role in this case nor any intimation was supplied to him regard to presentation of challan and subsequently, he was declared offender without effecting service upon him."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused have been granted bail and there is nothing in evidence to connect him or identify him as an offender.

6. The petitioner has offered a satisfactory explanation for his absence before the trial Court and his being declared a proclaimed offender.

7. 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.

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

9. 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.

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

11. In Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab and another, 2021 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 378,, a three-judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

[12]. In the case in hand, the High Court seems to have been primarily swayed by the fact that the Respondent Accused was 'co operating' with investigation. This is, however, contrary to the record as the Respondent Accused remained absconding for more than two years after being declared a proclaimed offender on 23.04.2018. She chose to join investigation only after securing interim bail from the High Court. She kept on hiding from the Investigating Agency as well as Magistrate's Court till she got protection against arrest from the High Court in the 2nd round of bail proceedings.

[13]. Even if there was any procedural irregularity in declaring the Respondent Accused as an absconder, that by itself was not a justifiable ground to grant prearrest bail in a case of grave offence save where the High Court on perusal of casediary and other material on record is, prima facie, satisfied that it is a case of false or overexaggerated Such being not the case here, the High Court went on a wrong premise in granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent Accused.

[14]. The ground of parity with co-accused Daksh Adya invoked by the High Court is equally unwarranted. The allegations in the FIR against the Respondent Mother in Law and her younger son Daksh Ad