LI Network
Published on: 8 September 2023 at 10:58 IST
The Allahabad High Court has offered clarity regarding the status of a “declared” proclaimed offender, emphasizing that a person cannot be declared as such until a written proclamation is published, as per Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
In a case involving Khalid Anwar and charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi granted anticipatory bail.
The Court rejected the objection raised by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which argued against bail for Khalid Anwar, citing a proclamation issued against him under Section 82 CrPC.
The case, registered in August of the previous year, involved allegations against 19 named individuals, including the applicant, as well as unidentified public servants and private individuals.
The allegations pertained to the smuggling of contraband items of foreign origin, such as gold (5501.99 grams), renowned foreign brand cigarettes (434,400 sticks), and saffron (30 kgs).
The Court acknowledged that a proclamation had indeed been issued under Section 82(1) CrPC on August 1, 2023, requiring the applicant’s appearance in court on September 2, 2023.
However, there was no evidence to suggest that the proclamation had been “published” in accordance with Section 82(1) CrPC.
The Court pointed out that there was no indication that the proclamation had been publicly announced in a prominent location in the town or village where the applicant typically resides, affixed to a conspicuous part of their residence, attached to a conspicuous location in the town or village, or published in a local newspaper, as required by Section 82(2) CrPC.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the issuing court had not provided a written statement, as required by Section 82(3) CrPC, confirming that the proclamation had been duly published in accordance with clause (i) of subsection (2).
In light of these observations, the Court determined that the applicant had not yet been officially declared a proclaimed offender. Therefore, the legal precedent established in the Supreme Court’s Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) case, which would have otherwise barred anticipatory bail, did not apply to this situation.
Considering the circumstances, including the non-cognizable and bailable nature of the alleged substantive offense, the absence of a criminal record for the applicant, and the fact that a co-accused had already been granted bail, the Court granted anticipatory bail to Khalid Anwar.
Legal representation included Shitla Prasad Tripathi and Amresh Singh for the applicant and Anurag Kumar Singh for the opposing party.