Ker. HC: Gain from Property Kept for Investment Purpose to be Taxed Under Capital Gains  ||  Cal. HC: Arbitrator Relying on Unverified Evidence is Contrary to Fundamental Policy of Indian Law  ||  Delhi High Court: Educational Institutions Strong Pillar of Democracy  ||  Bombay HC: If Ignorance Was an Excuse Every Accused Would Claim Unawareness of Law  ||  Calcutta High Court: Warrant of Arrest Should Not be Issued Mechanically  ||  Del. HC: Information Seeker has No Locus Standi in Penalty Proceedings Under Section 20 of RTI Act  ||  Ker. HC: Response Sought from Govt. Regarding Tourism Dept. Vehicles Carrying Dignitaries  ||  HP HC: Adultery Not a Ground to Automatically Disqualify Divorced Wife from Receiving Maintenance  ||  Ker. HC: HRC Being Quasi Judicial Body is Duty Bound to Comply With Principles of Natural Justice  ||  Del. HC: Independent Assessment of Award in Appeal u/s 37 of A&C Act Cannot be Undertaken by Courts    

Sameer Jain vs. State Of U.P. And Another (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:103016) - (High Court of Allahabad) (10 Jun 2024)

Anticipatory bail cannot be granted to a proclaimed offender



In present case, the applicant has been implicated in present case along with 15 other co-accused persons for committing the offences alleged in the FIR under different sections of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).Learned Senior counsel for the Applicant submits that number of co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bails, stay of arrest and regular bail. The offences alleged are of civil nature and engaging the attention of civil court hence, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on anticipatory bail.

The informant / opposite party no. 2, has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application. The opposite party no. 2 has submitted that as per Section 84(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), applicant was not entitled to file any objection since it is clear from Section 84(1) of CrPC that, the same can only be filed by a person, other than the proclaimed person, on the ground that the objector has interest in such property and it is not liable to attachment under Section 83 of CrPC. He has submitted that the applicant was a proclaimed offender and he had no right to file objection under Section 84(1)(2) of CrPC.

It is clear from Section 84(1) of CrPC that, a proclaimed offender had no right to file objection under Section 84(2) of CrPC. The applicant is clearly a proclaimed offender and an absconder. In the cases of Srikant Upadhyay and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Another, Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Prem Shankar Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Another, it has been held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to a proclaimed offender. No law to the contrary has been placed before this court by the counsel for the applicant.The interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant also stands cancelled. Anticipatory bail application is rejected.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved