Can courts consider anticipatory bail plea of accused declared absconder? Allahabad High Court answers

Considering the nature of accusations, and circumstances of the case, the Allahabad High Court found it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. (Image generated using AI)

The Allahabad High Court recently held that the issuance of proclamation whereby an accused is declared an absconder does not create an embargo on considering the application for grant of anticipatory bail.

Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary allowed the anticipatory bail plea filed by one Monika, a midwife nurse who was booked under Sections 316 (causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide), 420 (cheating), 504 (insult to provoke breach) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and relevant sections of the Medical Council Act, 1956.

“It is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for grant of anticipatory bail as here in the present case at the time when certain processes were issued against the applicant she was in family way and was unable to appear before the court concerned, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail,” the court held.

The woman had approached the high court seeking protection from arrest after the trial court issued non bailable warrant and proclamation under Sections 82 (proclamation for person absconding) and 83 (attachment of property of person absconded) Code of Criminal Procedure against her.

After filing of complaint the woman was granted interim anticipatory bail by the trial court. Subsequently, when her anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the trial court then she approached the high court wherein a coordinate bench of the court granted interim protection till the next date of listing.

The anticipatory bail plea was later rejected by the high court following which she again filed another anticipatory bail plea citing submission of chargesheet.

The counsel for the informant submitted that non bailable warrant and proclamation have been issued against her, therefore, the court could not entertain her anticipatory bail application.

Opposing this, the counsel for the bail applicant argued that when the non bailable warrant was issued against her she was in labour and had given birth to a child.

It was further argued that after cognizance she moved several applications for exemption from personal appearance as she was unable to appear before the trial court. It was submitted that the trial court without considering the application issued a non-bailable warrant against her.

Justice Gautam Chowdhary granted pre-arrest bail to the woman.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court reiterated that the declaration under Section 82 CrPC does not create an absolute bar on considering an anticipatory bail plea.

Considering the nature of accusations, the applicant’s role, and the circumstances under which coercive steps were taken, the court found it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

“In the event of arrest of the applicant- Monika, involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial,” the court directed while granting pre-arrest bail with conditions.