In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court has shed light on a crucial legal issue regarding the concurrent proceedings of anticipatory bail applications and the initiation of steps for proclamation against absconding accused. 

The case presented a scenario where the mere pendency of an application for anticipatory bail did not deter the trial court from proceeding with steps for proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The case originated from a situation where the trial court, despite the initial charge sheet mentioning only one accused, found sufficient evidence to proceed against other accused for offenses under Sections 341, 323, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Despite efforts by the accused to secure anticipatory bail, the trial court continued with proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC, leading to the dismissal of the bail application.

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the initiation of proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC, while an anticipatory bail application was pending without interim protection, affected the consideration of the bail application on its merits.

The bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, in it’s observation, emphasized the discretion of the court in dealing with anticipatory bail applications. They pointed out that Section 438(1) of the CrPC empowers the court to either reject the application outright or issue interim orders for the grant of anticipatory bail based on the factors enumerated therein.

Advocate Sachin Chopra represented the petitioner, arguing that the settled position of law regarding pre-arrest bail did not apply in a scenario where an anticipatory bail application was pending without interim orders, and proclamation proceedings were initiated. On the other hand, Advocate Praveen Mishra, appearing for the respondent, asserted the justiciability of issuing a non-bailable warrant and proceeding under Section 82 CrPC.

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the possibility of using proclamation proceedings as a tactic to evade the consequences of arrest, held that the pendency of an anticipatory bail application without interim protection should not bar the trial court from issuing or proceeding with steps for proclamation and invoking Section 83 of the CrPC, subject to the law's provisions.

Furthermore, the court clarified that the issuance of a warrant of arrest or proclamation would preclude the applicant from seeking anticipatory bail but did not strip the court of its power to grant pre-arrest bail in exceptional cases in the interest of justice.

Case: Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr,

Criminal Appeal No. of 2024  (@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7940 of 2023).

Click here to read/download judgment.