Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
18. Taking note of the aforesaid facts with respect to the issuance of summons, warrants and subsequently the proclamation, a conjoint reading of Sections 19, 20 and 21, IPC containing the terms “Judge”, “Court of Justice” and “Public Servant” and Sections 174 and 174A, IPC can make them liable even to face further proceedings. Same is [2024] 3 S.C.R. Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. the position in case of non-attendance in obedience to proclamation under Section 82, Cr. PC.
19. Bearing in mind the aforesaid provisions and position, we will refer to certain relevant decisions. In Savitaben Govindbhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat5, the High Court of Gujarat observed thus: – “9. Filing of an Anticipatory Bail Application by the petitioners-accused through their advocate cannot be said to be an appearance of the petitioners-accused in a competent Court, so far as proceeding initiated under Section 82/83 of the Code is concerned; otherwise each absconding accused would try to create shelter by filing an Anticipatory Bail Application to avoid obligation to appear before the court and raises the proceeding under Section 83 of the Code claiming that he cannot be termed as an absconder in the eye of law. Physical appearance before the Court is most important, if relevant scheme of Sections 82 and 83, is read closely.” (underline supplied)
20. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the Gujarat High Court 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, as mentioned above are instituted. The meaning of the term “absconded” has been dealt by us hereinbefore. We found that its etymological and original sense is that the accused is hiding himself. What is required as proof for absconding is the evidence to the effect that the person concerned was knowing that he was wanted and also about pendency of warrant of arrest. A detailed discussion is not warranted in this case to understand that the appellants were actually absconding. It is not in dispute that they were served with the “summons”. The fact that bailable warrants were issued against them on 12.04.2022 is also not disputed, as the appellants themselves have produced the order whereunder bailable warrants were issued against them. We have already referred to Section 70 (2), Cr. PC which would reveal the position that once a warrant is issued it would remain in force until it 2004 SCC OnLine Guj 345 434 is cancelled by the Court which issued it or until its execution. There is no case for the appellants that either of such events had occurred in this case to make the warrants unenforceable. They also got no case that their application was interfered with by a higher Court. That apart, it is a fact that the appellants themselves on 23.08.2022, moved a bail-cum-surrender application before the Trial Court but withdrew the same fearing arrest. It is also relevant to note that in the case on hand even while contending that they were before a Court, the appellants got no case that in terms of the provisions under Section 438 (1-B), Cr. PC an order for their presence before the Court was ordered either suo motu by the Court or on an application by the public prosecutor. When that be the circumstance, the appellants cannot be allowed to contend that they were not hiding or concealing themselves from arrest or that they were not knowing that they were wanted in a Court of law.
21. To understand and consider another contention of the appellants it is worthy to extract ground No.3 raised by the appellants in SLP which reads thus: “III. Because the Hon’ble High Court has failed to appreciate that proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued on 04.01.2023 by the Ld. Trial Court and thereafter process under section 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated on 15.03.2023 whereas the application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court was filed in November, 2022, however, the same was came for hearing on 04.04.2023. It is, therefore, evident that when the petitioners preferred filing of anticipatory bail before the Hon’ble High Court then none of the petitioner was declared absconder and process under section 82/83 Cr.P.C. were not initiated against them.”
22. The above extracted ground taken by the appellant constrains us to consider the question whether there could be any bar on the Trial Court for proceeding under Section 82 Cr.PC, merely because an anticipatory application for bail has been filed or because such an application was adjourned without passing any interim order. We may hasten to add here that it is always preferable to pass orders, either way, at the earliest. In the case on hand, application for anticipatory bail was filed by the appellants before the High Court in November, 2022 and brought up for hearing on 04.04.2023, on which day it was [2024] 3 S.C.R. Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. dismissed as per the impugned order. The very ground, extracted above, would reveal that in the meanwhile, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.PC, was issued on 04.01.2023 and thereafter process under Section 83 Cr.PC was initiated on 15.03.2023.
23. There can be no room for raising a contention that when an application is filed for anticipatory bail, it cannot be adjourned without passing an order of interim protection. A bare perusal of Section 438 (1), Cr.PC, would reveal that taking into consideration the factors enumerated thereunder the Court may either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail. The proviso thereunder would reveal that if the High Court or, the Court of Sessions, as the case may be, did not pass an interim order under this Section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-charge of a police station to arrest the person concerned without warrant, on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application. In view of the proviso under Section 438(1), Cr.PC, it cannot be contended that if, at the stage of taking up the matter for consideration, the Court is not rejecting the application, it is bound to pass an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail. In short, nothing prevents the court from adjourning such an application without passing an interim order. This question was considered in detail by a Single Bench of the High Court of Bombay, in the decision in Shrenik Jayantilal Jain and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Through EOW Unit II, Mumbai6 and answered as above and we are in agreement with the view that in such cases, there will be no statutory inhibition for arrest. Hence, the appellants cannot be heard to contend that the application for anticipatory bail filed in November, 2022 could not have been adjourned without passing interim order. At any rate, the said application was rejected on 04.04.2023. Pending the application for anticipatory bail, in the absence of an interim protection, if a police officer can arrest the accused concerned how can it be contented that the court which issued summons on account of non-obedience to comply with its order for appearance and then issuing warrant of arrest cannot proceed further in terms of the provisions under Section 82, Cr.PC, merely because of the pendency of an application for anticipatory bail. If the said position is accepted the same would be adopted as [2014 SCC Online Bom 549] 436 a ruse to escape from the impact and consequences of issuance of warrant for arrest and also from the issuance of proclamation under Section 82, Cr.PC, by filing successive applications for anticipatory bail. In such circumstances, and in the absence of any statutory prohibition and further, taking note of the position of law which enables a police officer to arrest the applicant for anticipatory bail if pending an application for anticipatory bail the matter is adjourned but no interim order was passed. We have no hesitation to answer the question posed for consideration in the negative. In other words, 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 under Section 83, Cr.PC, in accordance with law.
24. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant.
25. The factual narration made hereinbefore 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 [2024] 3 S.C.R. Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. 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 under Section 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. Such conduct of the appellants in the light of the aforesaid circumstances, leaves us with no hesitation to hold that they are not entitled to seek the benefit of pre-arrest bail.
26. The upshot of the discussion is that there is no ground for interfering with the order of the High Court rejecting the application for anticipatory bail rather not considering application on merits. Since their action is nothing short of defying the lawful orders of the Court and attempting to delay the proceedings, this appeal must fail. Consequently, it is dismissed. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.