AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
19 paragraphs · 392 wordsM.M. Kumar, J.—This petition filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeks grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case
FIR No.274 dated 18.11.1994 registered under Sections 452, 148, 506 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC registered at Police Station Civil
Lines, Bhiwani.
The allegations levelled against the petitioner are that he has been named in the aforementioned FIR and was later on declared as proclaimed
offender. He continued to be a proclaimed offender till day. Despite repeated queries, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to reply as to
whether any application for setting aside the proceedings declaring him proclaimed offender has been filed or he still continuous to be a proclaimed
offender in the record of the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has argued that on 20.9.2002, the petitioner was given interim
bail by this Court and he has joined investigation.
After learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that if an accused is declared as a proclaimed offender, he has no right to
apply for pre-arrest bail. It would be travesty of justice that on one hand the accused is declared as a proclaimed offender and on the other he is
seeking his release by pre-arrest bail. The proclamation declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender has not been placed on record nor it has
been suggested that any effort has been made to challenge the order passed by the Magistrate under those provisions. There are adequate
provisions in Chapter VI Part C enabling the petitioner to file an appropriate application for the setting aside of such a declaration and assure to the
Magistrate that he would be available for trial. However, nothing is shown to have been done. Therefore, it would not be possible to extend that
benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and the instant application is liable to be rejected.
The argument that the petitioner has joined the investigating is no answer to the basic fact that the petitioner is a proclaimed offender and cannot
enjoy the cushioned order of pre-arrest bail. The joining of investigation is hardly any ground to accept the prayer for pre-arrest bail. The
submission is misconceived and is liable to be rejected.
For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.