Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

[Landmark Judgement] State of M.P. V. Pradeep Sharma (2014)

2 min read
Landmark Judgment Law Insider (1)

Published on: 13 September 2023 at 20:33 IST

Case: Supreme Court of India

Citation: State of M.P. V. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 

Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that the person who was declared as an absconder or proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is held that when a person is not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as “Absconder” / “Proclaimed Offender” as then he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

17. In the case on hand, a perusal of the materials i.e. confessional statements of Sanjay Namdev, Pawan Kumar alias Ravi and Vijay alias Monu Brahambhatt reveals that the respondents administered poisonous substance to the deceased. Further, the statements of the witnesses that were recorded and the report of the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur dated 21-3-2012 have confirmed the existence of poison in milk rabri. Further, it is brought to our notice that warrants were issued on 21-11-2012 for the arrest of the respondents herein. Since they were not available/traceable, a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code was issued on 29-11-2012.

The documents (Annexure P-13) produced by the State clearly show that the CJM, Chhindwara, M.P. issued a proclamation requiring the appearance of both the respondent-accused under Section 82 of the Code to answer the complaint on 29-12-2012. All these materials were neither adverted to nor considered by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail and the High Court, without indicating any reason except stating “facts and circumstances of the case”, granted an order of anticipatory bail to both the accused. It is relevant to point out that both the accused are facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC.

In such serious offences, particularly, the respondent-accused being proclaimed offenders, we are unable to sustain the impugned orders [Sudhir Sharma v. State of M.P., Misc. Criminal Case No. 9996 of 2012, order dated 10-1-2013 (MP)] , [Gudda v. State of M.P., Misc. Criminal Case No. 15283 of 2012, order dated 17-1-2013 (MP)] of granting anticipatory bail. The High Court failed to appreciate that it is a settled position of law that where the accused has been declared as an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail.

Drafted By Abhijit Mishra