The High Court of Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh at Jammu has dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by Rajat Kumar, an accused in a serious sexual assault case, reinforcing the principle that individuals declared as proclaimed offenders are generally not entitled to pre-arrest protection. The ruling, delivered by Justice Sanjay Dhar, underscores the judicial position that those who evade the legal process for years forfeit their right to seek discretionary relief from the court.

The case originated from an First Information Report (FIR) No. 110/2022 registered at Police Station Billawar, involving allegations under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The prosecution case centered on a complaint filed by a minor girl, who alleged that she was attacked by the petitioner while she was working in her maize fields. Following a detailed investigation, the police filed a charge sheet before the Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua, revealing that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, thereby necessitating the inclusion of POCSO Act charges.

The petitioner, identified during the investigation as Rajat Kumar alias Laddo, had been at large since the incident. Despite widespread efforts by the police to trace his whereabouts across the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the authorities were unable to apprehend him. Consequently, the trial court declared him a proclaimed offender and authorized the issuance of general warrants of arrest. Furthermore, formal proceedings under Section 335 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, were initiated against him for his failure to appear before the court.

Seeking relief, the petitioner moved the High Court directly for anticipatory bail, arguing that there were discrepancies in his identification. He claimed that the victim had initially named a person called “Laddo” and later referred to an individual named “Ashok,” thus creating a reasonable doubt regarding his own involvement in the crime. Additionally, his counsel contended that he was residing outside the Union Territory, making it difficult to approach the local Sessions Court, and that he had never received formal notice to join the investigation.

Justice Sanjay Dhar, however, found no merit in these arguments. Addressing the procedural impropriety of the petition, the court noted that the petitioner had bypassed the local Sessions Court without providing any justifiable reason. Citing Supreme Court precedents, including the judgment in Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar , the High Court emphasized that while it possesses concurrent jurisdiction with the Sessions Court for bail matters, the established practice mandates that an applicant must first exhaust the remedy before the court of first instance. The court observed that residency outside the Union Territory is not, by itself, an adequate ground to bypass the lower judiciary, particularly when the applicant failed to even disclose his current address in the legal papers submitted to the court.

The most critical factor in the court’s decision was the petitioner's status as a proclaimed offender. The High Court rejected the notion that the accused was unaware of the case, citing documented evidence that the police had attempted to serve notices and had recorded statements from officers confirming his evasive behavior. The court maintained that once a person is officially declared a fugitive, the court’s willingness to extend the extraordinary protection of anticipatory bail evaporates.

Reflecting on the legal threshold for such relief, the judge stated, “A person continuously defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to concession of bail.” This perspective was further bolstered by the court’s reliance on the landmark judgment in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) , where it was established that a proclaimed offender under the relevant provisions of the law cannot invoke the court's power for pre-arrest bail under normal circumstances. The judgment explicitly noted, “Normally, when the accused is 'absconding' and declared as a 'proclaimed offender', there is no question of granting anticipatory bail.”

Regarding the identity dispute raised by the petitioner, the court observed that the investigation had effectively linked the petitioner to the crime through the corroborated statements of multiple witnesses. The court noted that while there was initial confusion regarding names, the physical descriptions and familial details matched the petitioner precisely. Consequently, the court found no unique or exceptional circumstances that would justify a deviation from established legal protocols or a favorable exercise of judicial discretion in the petitioner’s favor.

The court reiterated that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy intended to protect individuals from potential false accusations or harassment, not to provide a shield for those attempting to obstruct the due process of law. By absconding, the petitioner had effectively blocked the investigative process, an act that the court refused to condone.

The petition was ultimately dismissed, leaving the original warrants of arrest issued by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua, in full effect. This decision reaffirms the high bar for securing bail when an accused has been declared a fugitive and emphasizes the critical importance of procedural compliance in criminal justice matters within the Union Territory. The petitioner remains subject to the ongoing legal proceedings under the POCSO Act and the BNSS, as the court maintains its strict stance against those who attempt to circumvent the judicial system.