1. Petition for anticipatory bail under BNSS for offences under NDPS Act and IPC; petitioner was declared a proclaimed person. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J
Ravi Kumar Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-64819-2024
Important Points
A person declared as a proclaimed offender is generally not entitled to anticipatory bail and must first get the proclamation order quashed or set aside, unless the case falls under extreme, exceptional, or rare circumstances.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act: S.15
Indian Penal Code: S.420, S.467, S.468, S.471, S.120-B, S.34, S.174-A
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.482, S.84
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.82, S.83, S.438
Indian Penal Code: S.420, S.467, S.468, S.471, S.120-B, S.34, S.174-A
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: S.482, S.84
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.82, S.83, S.438
Headnote
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Section 84 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 82 - Section 438 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 15 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 - Anticipatory bail - Proclaimed Offender - Normally, when an accused is absconding and declared as a proclaimed offender, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail, and the person is not entitled to such relief (Paras 8, 10, 18). Parity with co-accused cannot be a ground for grant of bail when the petitioner is a proclaimed person and has intentionally concealed this fact from the court (Para 5). The remedy for a person declared as a proclaimed offender is to first get the proclamation order quashed or set aside before seeking anticipatory bail (Paras 5, 6). (Paras 20, 25).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in an FIR involving charges under the NDPS Act and IPC. It was revealed that the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class on 28.03.2018 and had remained a fugitive for seven years. The petitioner concealed this fact in the bail petition and sought parity with co-accused who had obtained bail.
Findings of Court:
The petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is a proclaimed offender and the case does not fall under the category of 'exceptional and rare cases'.
Issues: Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a person declared as a proclaimed offender who concealed such a fact from the court.
Ratio Decidendi: A proclaimed offender is generally not entitled to anticipatory bail and must first assail the proclamation order. Disclosure and honesty with the court are paramount, and concealment of proclamation status precludes discretionary relief.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in an FIR involving charges under the NDPS Act and IPC. It was revealed that the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class on 28.03.2018 and had remained a fugitive for seven years. The petitioner concealed this fact in the bail petition and sought parity with co-accused who had obtained bail.
Findings of Court:
The petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is a proclaimed offender and the case does not fall under the category of 'exceptional and rare cases'.
Issues: Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to a person declared as a proclaimed offender who concealed such a fact from the court.
Ratio Decidendi: A proclaimed offender is generally not entitled to anticipatory bail and must first assail the proclamation order. Disclosure and honesty with the court are paramount, and concealment of proclamation status precludes discretionary relief.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akshay Kumar Dahiya, Gurnoor S. Sandhu
For the Respondents: Naveen K. Sheoran
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akshay Kumar Dahiya, Gurnoor S. Sandhu
For the Respondents: Naveen K. Sheoran
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought parity with co-accused who were granted bail; State opposed citing petitioner's status as proclaimed offender and concealment. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Petitioner concealed his status as proclaimed person; remedy is to first get proclamation order quashed before seeking anticipatory bail. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 25 )
4. A person declared as a proclaimed offender is not entitled to anticipatory bail unless the proclamation order is first quashed, except in rare cases. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 12 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 24 )
5. Petition dismissed on technical grounds of maintainability due to petitioner being a proclaimed person; liberty to file fresh petition after quashing proclamation. (Para 7 , 25 )
6. Can a person declared as a proclaimed offender be granted anticipatory bail?
Ordinarily, no. A proclaimed offender is not entitled to anticipatory bail unless the proclamation order is first quashed, except in rare and exceptional cases. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 24 )
7. Is the bar on granting anticipatory bail to a proclaimed offender absolute?
No. The bar is not absolute; constitutional courts may grant anticipatory bail in exceptional and rare cases, though a person continuously defying orders is not entitled. (Para 19 , 20 , 22 , 24 )
8. Can parity with a co-accused who was granted bail be a ground for anticipatory bail to a proclaimed offender?
No. Parity is not a valid ground when the petitioner is a proclaimed offender, especially when the proclamation order is not quashed and the co-accused's status differs. (Para 4 , 5 , 12 )
9. Does the concealment of being a proclaimed person affect the maintainability of an anticipatory bail application?
Yes. Concealing the fact of being a proclaimed person from the court is a material suppression that weighs against granting anticipatory bail. (Para 5 )
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
|---|---|---|---|
| 257 | 09.07.2017 | Kundali, Sonipat | 15 of NDPS Act and 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 IPC |
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 17 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents, however as per paragraph 16 of the reply, the accused has the following criminal antecedent:-
| Sr. No. | FIR No. | Date | Offenses | Police Station |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 890 | 22.12.2022 | 174-A IPC | Kundli, Sonipat |
3. The primary rider for the petitioner who seeks anticipatory bail is that he was declared as a proclaimed person. As per para no.7 of the reply dated 10.01.2025, the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class vide order dated 28.03.2018 declared petitioner, Ravi, Sunil and Mukesh Bhalotia as proclaimed persons. Subsequently, PO challan was submitted against them on 19.05.2018. In para no.9 of the reply, it has been mentioned that Sunil @ Topy had approached this Court by filing CRM-M No.51996 of 2019 and vide order dated 06.12.2019, he was granted interim anticipatory bail and joined investigation and was released on interim bail and the same was made absolute on 01.07.2021 by a Coordinate Bench. Subsequently, even the supplementary challan was filed against Sunil and submitted in the Court. Although the criminal trial against the accused qua which it was started namely Suresh Kumar, Dashrath, Deepak and Narender Tyagi was concluded vide judgment dated 22.08.2023 in which accused Dashrath Jain and Narender Tyagi were acquitted whereas accused Mukesh and Suresh were convicted under Section 15 of NDPS Act and Deepak was convicted under Section 29 of NDPS Act.
4. As per para no.11 of the reply, trial against accused Sunil Kumar @ Topy and Bal Krishan is pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge for prosecution evidence and charges against them have been framed vide order dated 19.07.2022. As per para no.12 of the reply, accused Mukesh Bhalotia was also granted anticipatory bail by this Court in CRM-M No.44057 of 2024 vide order dated 29.11.2024. Perusal of order dated 29.11.2024 does not mention that the petitioner was proclaimed person and this Court while granting bail was oblivious of the fact that petitioner was a proclaimed person and this Court while granting bail was oblivious of the fact that Mukesh Bhalotia was a proclaimed person, as such petitioner is not entitled to bail on parity with co-accused Mukesh. Further it is not clear that whether proclamation order of Mukesh Bhalotia had been quashed or not.
5. In the bail petition, petitioner has concealed that he was declared as proclaimed person. It appears that he wanted to take advantage of the bail granted to co-accused Mukesh Bhalotia who had also adopted the similar tactics or probably had got his proclamation order quashed. In any circumstances the bail granted to co-accused cannot be a ground to grant bail to the petitioner when this Court is fully aware of the fact that petitioner was proclaimed person and the fact despite in the knowledge of the petitioner was intentionally concealed from the Court. Even after filing of reply, no counter reply/replication was filed by the petitioner contradicting such stand or annexing any document which would suggest that proclamation order had been quashed or set aside. Despite the fact that two of the similarly placed co-accused were acquitted by the trial Court and similarly placed co-accused got anticipatory bail, the remedy before the petitioner is to first get the proclamation order quashed.
6. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case and petitioner who was a fugitive for 07 years despite aware of his being declared as proclaimed person, his anticipatory bail would be maintainable only when his proclamation proceedings are quashed and set aside.
7. Given above, the present petition is dismissed. Interim order,
