Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.

If the said position is accepted the same would be adopted as a ruse to escape from the impact and consequences of issuance of warrant for arrest and also from the issuance of proclamation u/s. 82, Cr.PC, by filing successive applications for anticipatory bail – It is made clear that in the absence of any interim order, pendency of an application for anticipatory bail shall not bar the Trial Court in issuing/proceeding with steps for proclamation and in taking steps u/s. 83, Cr.PC, in accordance with law. [Para 23] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 438 and s.82 – Various orders by trial Court – Issuance of non-bailable warrants – Disobedience by the conduct – Proclamation issued u/s. 82 – Appellants sought pre-arrest bail – Whether appellants were entitled to pre-arrest bail: Held: The facts would reveal the consistent disobedience of the appellants to comply with the orders of the trial Court – They failed to appear before the Trial Court after the receipt of the summons, and then after the issuance of bailable warrants even when their co-accused, after the issuance of bailable warrants, applied and obtained regular bail – Though the appellants filed an application, which they themselves described as “bail-cum-surrender application” on 23.08.2022, they got it withdrawn on the fear of being arrested – Even after the issuance of non-bailable warrants on 03.11.2022 they did not care to appear before the Trial Court and did not apply for regular bail after its recalling – It is a fact that even after coming to know about the proclamation u/s. 82 Cr.PC., they did not take any steps to challenge the same or to enter appearance before the Trial Court to avert the consequences – Considering the conduct of the appellants, there is no hesitation to hold that they are not entitled to seek the benefit of pre-arrest bail. [Para 16] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.82 – Non-attendance in obedience to proclamation u/s. 82 Cr.P.C. – Filing of an anticipatory bail application through an advocate – Whether filing of such application through advocate could be treated as appearance before the Court: Held: The view taken by the Gujarat High Court in Savitaben Govindbhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat is approved that filing of an anticipatory bail through an advocate would not and could not be treated as appearance before a court by a person against whom such proceedings (u/ss.82/83 of Cr.P.C.) are instituted. [Paras 19 and 20] Digital Supreme Court Reports [2024] 3 S.C.R. 423 Case Law Cited