IMPORTANT POINT
A proclaimed offender is not entitled to anticipatory bail, particularly in serious fraud cases, unless exceptional circumstances exist.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The applicant seeks anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 314 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Patelnagar, District Dehradun.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Briefly stated, the case against the applicant is as follows:

The applicant and the informant both were in business transactions. According to the FIR, the informant gave two cheques of Rs.5 lakh each to the applicant in discharge of their obligations. But, according to the FIR, the applicant forged the cheques and made them for Rs.45 lakh each.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the forgery is not established; the Forensic Science Laboratory Report does not confirm that the alleged forgery was committed by the applicant. He would submit that there are some observations with regard to figures in the cheques, but with regard to the words, there is no opinion.

5. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that it is a case arising out of business transactions. The applicant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the informant. Initially, when the matter was investigated, final report was submitted. During that period, the applicant had joined the proceedings. Thereafter, the applicant was never told about the pending investigation. He was never made to participate in the investigation. The applicant did join the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer on various dates, after he was given ad interim protection in ABA No. 1589 of 2023, Satinder Pal Singh vs. State, by the court of Sessions Judge, Dehradun.

6. It is argued that after rejection of the anticipatory bail application on 11.10.2023, on 02.11.2023, the matter was taken up by this Court. He would also submit that the mere issuance of proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) is not enough for declining anticipatory bail to the applicant. In order to decline liberty in terms of anticipatory bail, a person should be a proclaimed offender. He would refer the principle of law laid down in the case of State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would also refer to Section 79 of the Code to argue that the applicant is a resident of outside the State of Uttarakhand. In case, the non bailable warrant was issued and it was to be executed, there ought to have been some endorsement of the competent authority as required by provision of Section 79 of the Code.

8. In the case of Dharamraj (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred the law on the point and observed as follows:

“16. What the High Court (also) lost sight of was that the respondent was a declared proclaimed offender. The High Court notes, at Paragraph 28, that it was not dealing with the prayer seeking quashing of the proclamation proceedings as the same were not made part of the petition before it. As things were, the respondent was declared a proclaimed offender on 05.02.2021, and sought anticipatory bail from the High Court only in October, 2021. As such, it was not correct for the High Court to brush aside such factum, on the basis of averments alone, purporting to explain the backdrop of such declaration by mere advertence to a similar-sounding name, in the petition before it, as recorded at Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Impugned Order. The declaration of the respondent as a proclaimed offender, and such declaration subsisting on the date of the Impugned Order, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the respondent was entitled to ‘reform and course correct’.

17. The respondent, without first successfully assailing the order declaring him as a proclaimed offender, could not have proceeded to seek anticipatory bail. Looking to the factual prism, we are clear that the respondent's application under Section 438, CrPC should not have been entertained, as he was a proclaimed offender. We