Anticipatory Bail Plea Maintainable Even If Chargesheet Shows Accused As Declared Absconder: Madhya Pradesh HC

Post By 24law
March 3, 2025

Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an anticipatory bail plea is maintainable even if the chargesheet filed by the prosecution shows the accused as a declared absconder. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain, was answering a reference made by a Single Judge regarding the maintainability of anticipatory bail in such cases.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

The court clarified that an anticipatory bail plea remains maintainable even when proceedings under Sections 82 (Proclamation for Person Absconding) and 83 (Attachment of Property of Person Absconding) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) have been initiated against the accused. It further held that such a plea can be entertained even when the accused has been declared an absconder or proclaimed offender under these provisions.

Referring to the legal position, the bench observed: “Taking note of the legal aspects on the question and the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are inclined to hold that in both the scenarios, where the proceedings under Section 82/83 and 299 of Cr.P.C. (84/85 and 335 of the BNSS) have been initiated against the accused and/or he has been declared proclaimed offender, the application for anticipatory bail would be maintainable. However, such consideration and grant of anticipatory bail to the accused would depend upon the gravity and seriousness of the offence involved therein. It is needless to mention here that such power should be exercised in a very cautious manner and in extreme and exceptional cases only in the interest of justice.”

The bench further ruled: “In this view of the matter the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Bhupender Singh and Gaurav Malviya and other allied cases holding that anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in cases where the chargesheet has been filed, are not the correct enunciation of law and the same are hereby overruled to that extent. We, therefore, hold that the application for anticipatory bail is maintainable even if the chargesheet has been filed showing accused as declared absconder.”

Background of the Case

The reference arose from a case where the petitioner was accused under Sections 420 (Cheating), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), and 409 (Criminal Breach of Trust by a Public Servant, Banker, Merchant, or Agent) read with Section 34 (Common Intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The investigating agency had filed a chargesheet before the trial court, showing the petitioner as an absconder. Consequently, proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC were initiated, and the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender with a perpetual warrant of arrest issued against him. His anticipatory bail plea was initially rejected by the trial court, prompting him to approach the High Court.

Conflict in Judicial Precedents

During the hearing, the State argued that the anticipatory bail plea was not maintainable, citing conflicting rulings of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. One line of cases, including Bhupendra Singh v. State of M.P. and Gaurav Malviya v. State of M.P., had held that once an accused is declared absconding in a chargesheet, an anticipatory bail application is not maintainable. Conversely, another line of cases, including Balveer Singh Bundela v. State of M.P., had ruled that anticipatory bail could still be considered.

The division bench, after examining various precedents, noted: “It is clear like a noon-day that the power under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and therefore, it cannot be curtailed. If a view is taken that in all cases application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable, it would curtail the power conferred upon the Courts under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C./482 of the BNSS. However, there shall be restrictions with regard to grant of anticipatory bail to the accused which will depend upon the nature of the offences which are alleged against the accused coupled with the fact that such grant of anticipatory bail to the accused does not in any manner hamper and affect the ongoing investigation of the case.”

Precedents Referred

The court analyzed multiple Supreme Court judgments, including:

Bharat Chaudhary and Another v. State of Bihar (2003) – The Supreme Court held that the mere filing of a chargesheet does not bar the maintainability of an anticipatory bail plea.

Pradeep Sharma v. State of M.P. (2014) – The Court denied anticipatory bail, considering the gravity of the offense and non-cooperation of the accused.

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) – The landmark ruling where the Supreme Court recognized anticipatory bail as a fundamental protection.

Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) – The Court reiterated that anticipatory bail should be available in appropriate cases irrespective of the stage of investigation.

Thus, the court held that in both the scenarios, where the proceedings under Section 82/83 and 299 of Cr.P.C. (84/85 and 335 of the BNSS) have been initiated against the accused and/or he has been declared proclaimed offender, the application for anticipatory bail would be maintainable.

Cause Title: Deepankar Vishwas Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Through P.S. Omti, District Jabalpur