An accused who has been declared an absconder or proclaimed offender is not entitled to anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court said Thursday while setting aside an order of Patna High Court in a cheating case.
A bench of Justices M R Shah and A S Bopanna said the High court has committed an error in granting anticipatory bail to the accused ignoring the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Under section 82 of CrPC, a court can publish a proclamation requiring the accused to appear if the warrant issued against him cannot be executed.
According to section 83 of CrPC, after issuing such a proclamation, the court may also order attachment of the proclaimed offender's properties.
"It is observed and held by this court that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of section 82 of CrPC, he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail," the bench said.
The apex court said that even the observations made by the High Court while granting the anticipatory bail to the accused that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction and therefore the accused is entitled to the anticipatory bail are concerned, the same cannot be accepted.
"Even in the case of a business transaction also there may be offences under the IPC more particularly sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will), 468 and 470 ( Forged document or electronic record). What is required to be considered is the nature of the allegation and the accusation and not that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction," the bench said.
The top court said it is to be noted that the accused has been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420, etc. and a charge sheet has been filed in the court of Magistrate Court.
The apex court was hearing an appeal challenging an order of the high court which granted anticipatory bail to an accused ignoring that the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of CrPC had been initiated by the lower court.
The trial court had dismissed the anticipatory bail on the ground that as the accused is absconding and even the proceedings under section 82/83 CrPC have been issued, the accused is not entitled to the anticipatory bail.