No Absolute Prohibition Against Considering An Application For Anticipatory Bail After Issuance Of Warrant Of Arrest Or Proclamation U/S 82 CrPC: Allahabad HC

The Court was hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail Application filed seeking anticipatory bail for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 129-B of IPC.

The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed, “there is no absolute prohibition against considering an application for anticipatory bail after issuance of warrant of arrest or a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and the court is empowered to consider the merits of the case in extreme exceptional cases in the interest of justice.”

Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Kalra appeared for the Applicant and Advocate Punit Kumar Yadav appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

In the present case, a Lekhpal filed a complaint against seven individuals, including the Applicant, alleging that co-accused Jawahar Lal had signed two agreements with co-accused Amit Agarwal to sell government land classified as "banjar" in revenue records. Another co-accused, Rajmangal Mishra, signed an agreement to sell part of this land to the Applicant. The Applicant's request for anticipatory bail was rejected by the Sessions Court.

The Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay and others versus State of Bihar (2024) where according to the Court it was observed, “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….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.”

The Court further mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao v. State of A.P., (2003) and quoted, “Each case, more particularly a criminal case, depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough to warrant like treatment because a significant detail may alter the entire aspect.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Anticipatory Bail Application.