JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Akhilesh Srivastava and Sri Saksham Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and Sri Siddharth Saran and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel who have filed 'Vakalatnama' for the informant/complainant, same is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed one second supplementary affidavit enclosing therewith the true copy of the anticipatory bail application filed before the sessions court, the same is taken on record.

3. The present applicant is apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No. 02 of 2021 u/s 323, 504, 506, 313, 376, 377 IPC, P.S. Baghpat, District Baghpat (U.P.). It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.

4. The learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant/complainant have raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present anticipatory bail application on the ground that the proclamation u/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant, so his anticipatory bail application may not be entertained and no order in such application can be passed. Therefore, I would firstly advert to such objection regarding maintainability.

5. As per second supplementary affidavit the Annexure S.A.-1 is anticipatory bail application of the present applicant filed before the sessions court u/s 438 Cr.P.C. on 16.3.2022 and such application has been rejected on 5.4.2022. While rejecting the anticipatory bail application the sessions court has indicated that the proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the accused. It has been informed at the Bar that such proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued on 24.3.2022. Therefore, when the present applicant filed his anticipatory bail application he was not declared as proclaimed offender but he was declared proclaimed offender during the pendency of his anticipatory bail application before the learned sessions court.

6. As per section 438 Cr.P.C. the anticipatory bail application may be filed either before sessions court or before High Court inasmuch as both the aforesaid courts are having a concurrent jurisdiction. Section 438 (1) Cr.P.C. clearly mandates that if any anticipatory bail application is filed, either it may be rejected forthwith or any interim order may be passed. In other words if the court wants to know some information from the other side, the case may be posted for another date and if the applicant has got prima facie case and his apprehension of arrest appears to be bonafide in a case where the allegations prima facie do not corroborate with material available on record may grant interim anticipatory bail. However, in the present case the proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued during the pendency of the application. Apex Court in re: Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171 and Prem Shanker Prasad vs. State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2021) has imposed bar to entertain such application if filed by the proclaimed offender. In the present case at the time of filing anticipatory bail application the applicant was not proclaimed offender.

7. Learned AGA has also informed that on 13.5.2022 the further proclamation of section 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the present applicant.

8. Be that as it may, at the time of filing anticipatory bail application on 16.3.2022 the present applicant was not proclaimed offender, therefore, the bar so imposed by the Apex Court would be considered in the light of intent and purport of said judgments wherein the proclaimed offender has been restrained to get any relief in the application of anticipatory bail. In the present case the applicant was not declared as a proclaimed offender on 16.3.2021, the date of filing anticipatory bail, therefore, to me such bar could not restrain the