Anticipatory Bail Shall Not Be Granted To Proclaimed Person U/S 82 CrPC Except In Exceptional Circumstances: Delhi High Court Rejects Jewels Company Director's Plea
An Application for grant of anticipatory bail was preferred before the Delhi High Court by the accused director in relation to an FIR registered under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B of the IPC.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail to a Director of a jewels company, saying that the same shall not be granted to a proclaimed person under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), except in exceptional circumstances.
An Application for grant of anticipatory bail was preferred before the Court by the accused director in relation to an FIR registered under Sections 409, 420, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
A Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held, “The status report reveals the consistent disobedience of the petitioner to comply with the orders of the trial Court as he failed to join the investigation and appear before it even after issuance of NBWs and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., illustrating his consistent disobedience. Keeping in view the law and judicial precedents, anticipatory bail shall not be granted to person, who is a proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C except in exceptional circumstances.”
Senior Advocate Amit Chadha appeared on behalf of the Petitioner/Accused while APP Aman Usman appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Case Background
As per the allegations, the Complainant-firm Taj Exports purchased 26 kgs gold of 24 karats from Yes Bank after paying total amount of Rs. 9,66,80,104/-. Yes Bank delivered the purchased questioned gold bars through its hired companies-M/s Brinks India Private Limited and M/s Securitrans India Private Limited to the authorized persons cum employees of alleged company-M/s Jewels Creation Private Limited. The gold bars were handed over to the Petitioner-accused who was the Director of the said jewels company involved in making jewellery articles. The jewellery of 16131.440 Kgs of gold was made out of 26 Kgs gold and handed over to the Complainant-firm.
It was alleged that the accused neither made jewellery of the balance 9868.560 gms gold, nor returned the same to the Complainant firm. It was further alleged that the accused did not join the investigation and evaded his arrest. He was declared a proclaimed person by the Trial Court vide an Order. Section 174A IPC was also invoked against the accused and a chargesheet was filed against him under relevant provisions of the IPC. Seeking anticipatory bail, the accused approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, observed, “An additional factor to be taken into account is that proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner and he was declared a proclaimed person. In the case of Srikant Upadhyay & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborately examined the consequences of being declared an absconder/Proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C. on the entitlement to anticipatory bail.”
The Court noted that when a person is found to be deliberately avoiding arrest and has been declared an absconder or proclaimed offender/person, it considerably undermines their claim for pre-arrest bail/anticipatory bail.
“The present case does not form an exceptional or extraordinary case where this discretionary power of the Court be used. In the light of cumulative circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to seek the benefit of pre-arrest/ anticipatory bail”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Application and denied anticipatory bail to the accused.
Cause Title- Jagadish Das through its Parokar v. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4999)
