ORDER

1. This is the applicant's first application under section 438 CrPC, for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.06/2020, registered at Police Station Depalpur, District-Indore for commission of the offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.

2. Learned senior counsel has argued at length and also on the point that the application for anticipatory bail is maintainable despite an order under section 82 of the CrPC wherein an accused is declared as proclaimed offender is maintainable. It is also contended that the order passed under section 82 of CrPC is also bad in law. Learned senior counsel has relied upon the decision rendered by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in the case of Balveer Singh Bundela v. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in M.Cr.C. No. 5621/2020 [Published in 2020(3) JLJ 435] and it is submitted that in the aforesaid decision the Gwalior Bench has clearly laid down the law after taking into consideration of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2012) 8 SCC 73 as well as in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171 and it is further submitted that while passing of the aforesaid order this Court has also relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab reported in 2014(1) JLJ 365 = AIR 1980 SC 1632. In such circumstances, learned senior counsel has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer.

4. On due consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the case diary including the documents filed by the applicant, this Court finds that, against the applicant the proclamation proceedings under section 82 of the CrPC have already been concluded on 10.2.2020. Since it has not been challenged, it has already attained the finality and as such the correctness of the same cannot be gone into in this bail application.

5. On the question that an application for anticipatory bail is maintainable even when a proclamation under section 82 of CrPC is made, it is found that, so far as the aforesaid decision rendered by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in the case of Balveer Singh Bundela (supra), is concerned, the same is of no avail to the applicant as the attention of this Court has also been brought to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Principal Bench of this Court in the case of Arif Masood v. State of Madhya Pradesh passed in M.Cr.C.No. 45501/2020 dated 27.11.2020 wherein the Court after considering the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Lavesh v. State (supra), and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (supra), has held as under :-

“20. The next question is whether the applicant can be denied bail only because he is absconding. In Lavesh (supra), the apex Court dealt with this issue as under :-

"12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as "absconder". 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 he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail."

21. In the case of Pradeep Sharma (supra), the principle laid down in Lavesh (supra), was followed. In the said case, it was brought to the notice of Supreme Court that a proclamation under section 82 of Code was already issued on 29.11.2012. We are unable to persuade ourselves with the argument of Shri Kaurav that in Pradeep Sharma (supra), the apex Court has taken a different view than th