The Allahabad High Court recently while granting anticipatory bail to a 15-year-old boy has observed that a person cannot be denied anticipatory bail on proclamation under Section 82 Code of Criminal Procedure, when the application was filed before the trial court immediately after the FIR was lodged, and after rejection of the same had approached the High Court within a reasonable time.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Lucknow Bench observed, “Keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged on 24.03.2023, the application for grant of anticipatory bail to the co-accused was rejected by the trial court on 07.06.2023. Notice of the present application was given to the State on 03.07.2023 and the proclamation under section 82 against the applicant had been issued on 04.07.2023, I am of the view that as the applicant had filed application for grant of anticipatory bail before the trial court, without any inordinate delay after lodging of the F.I.R. and after rejection of the same he had given notice of the present application within a reasonable time and the process under Section 82 has been issued thereafter, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the application seeking anticipatory bail for the applicant does not deserve to be rejected on this preliminary objection”.

Advocate Manoj Kumar Mishra appeared for the applicant.

In the matter, an incident had occurred because of a sudden quarrel between the families of the applicant and the informant in which the persons from both the sides received injuries. the applicant tried to lodge FIR of the incident, however, the same was not registered. The mother of the applicant co-accused then filed an anticipatory application where the High Court directed in the order that in case of her arrest, the aforesaid co-accused shall be released forthwith on bail.

The Court had also recorded in the order that there are some photographs showing that the informant's brother was breaking the vehicle of the applicant and that the persons from both the sides have received injuries in the incident. On that, the applicant had submitted that it is only after the order that those evidences of the incident were taken by the investigating officer and an FIR was registered against the informant and his family members.

The State on the other hand, had vehemently opposed the application for anticipatory bail contending that a proclamation under Section 82 has been issued against them and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Prem Shankar Prasad v State of Bihar, 2021 SCC Online SC 955, they are not entitled to the claim after issuance of a proclamation declaring them 'absconders'.

Therefore, after considering the facts and the circumstances, the bench thus further observed, “Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the dispute appears to have taken place because of a sudden quarrel; that persons from both the sides have received injuries in the incident; that the co-accused Sneh Lata has been granted anticipatory bail by this court, and that the applicant's FIR was not registered under intervention of this court and a direction issued to the investigating officer to take evidence of the incident from the applicant, three co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail; that the applicant is 15 years old boy having no criminal history, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be granted anticipatory bail”.

Resultantly, the bench disposed of the application with a direction that in the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant before the Trial Court, he shall be released on anticipatory bail in the on furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties, and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court.

Cause Title: Utkarsh Mishra @ Abhi (Minor) Thru. His Natural Guardian/Father Prabhu Narayan Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Another

Click here to read/download the Order