The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently clarified that an application for anticipatory bail remains maintainable even if the accused has been declared an absconder or if proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) have been initiated against them. This significant ruling addresses the legal complexities surrounding the rights of individuals who have been proclaimed as absconders and their eligibility to seek anticipatory bail.
In a case brought before the Jabalpur bench, a reference was made by a single judge to determine the maintainability of an anticipatory bail plea under circumstances where the accused had been declared an absconder. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain, examined the legal provisions and precedents to arrive at their decision. They observed that the initiation of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC, or the declaration of an individual as a proclaimed offender, does not inherently bar the filing of an anticipatory bail application. However, they emphasized that the consideration and potential grant of such bail should be approached with caution, taking into account the gravity and seriousness of the offense involved.
This ruling aligns with previous judgments by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. For instance, in May 2020, the Gwalior Bench observed that the declaration of an accused as an "absconder" under Section 82 of the CrPC does not preclude them from seeking anticipatory bail. The court stated that no bar exists against a person seeking such bail, even after being declared an absconder. Similarly, in the case of Balveer Singh Bundela v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court distinguished between the maintainability and entitlement of anticipatory bail. It noted that while being declared an absconder might affect the merits of the bail application, it does not render the application itself non-maintainable.
However, it's important to note that the Supreme Court of India has taken a different stance in certain cases. In Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), the apex court held that normally, when an accused is absconding and has been declared a proclaimed offender, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. This position was reiterated in Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court set aside the anticipatory bail granted by the Patna High Court to an absconder, emphasizing that such individuals are not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
The differing views between the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Supreme Court highlight the nuanced interpretations of the law regarding anticipatory bail for absconders. While the High Court emphasizes the maintainability of the bail application irrespective of the absconder status, the Supreme Court focuses on the entitlement to bail, suggesting that absconders should not be granted such relief. This divergence underscores the importance of considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case, as well as the gravity of the alleged offense, when adjudicating anticipatory bail applications for individuals declared as absconders.
In conclusion, the Madhya Pradesh High Court's recent ruling reinforces its stance that the declaration of an accused as an absconder does not automatically bar them from seeking anticipatory bail. However, the ultimate decision to grant such bail rests on a careful evaluation of the case's merits, the seriousness of the offense, and the individual's conduct. This approach ensures a balance between upholding the rights of the accused and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.