'Proclaimed Offender' Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail: Himachal Pradesh High Court
|The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that once a person was declared a proclaimed offender, he is not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail concerning an FIR. The police found a backpack on an HRTC Bus containing 336.63 grams of intoxicating powder, and the petitioner was implicated in the crime.
A Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla relying upon the Apex Court judgment of State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1085 held, “It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1085, that once a person was declared a proclaimed offender, he is not entitled to pre-arrest bail.”
Advocate Ashok Kumar Thakur appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Prashant Sen appeared for the Respondent.
The respondent opposed the petition, presenting a status report. The report stated that the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender, and non-bailable warrants were issued. The police found heroin in the backpack, and CCTV footage linked the petitioner to the crime.
The Court considered both sides' arguments and referred to legal precedents. Citing P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) SCC 24 and State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1085 the Court emphasized that the power of pre-arrest is extraordinary and should be sparingly exercised.
The Court noted that the petitioner, declared a proclaimed offender, was not entitled to pre-arrest bail, citing relevant legal judgments.
The status report indicated sufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the crime through CCTV footage and the backpack containing heroin. The Court added, “The status report clearly states that the petitioner boarded the bus with the backpack and he was seen in the CCTV footage. Therefore, there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the backpack recovered by the police. No explanation has been provided regarding the petitioner having the backpack at the time of the boarding of the bus. Just, because the backpack was not kept by the petitioner with him does not mean that he was not in possession of the same.”
The Court thus said, “Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he was not in possession when he was able to exercise control over the backpack.”
The Court dismissed the pre-arrest bail petition, concluding that the petitioner was not entitled to relief.
Cause Title: Dildar Khan v. State of H.P., [2023:HHC:13806]
Click here to read/download Order