This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.
Overview
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by a man who had been declared a proclaimed offender, holding that his deliberate and repeated evasion of the investigating agency deprived him of any claim that his case fell within the “rare and exceptional” category that alone permits pre-arrest protection to an absconding accused.
- Case: Mashu Alias Aman Joshi v. State of U.P.
- Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 409
- Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
- Date: 14 July 2026
Facts
The applicant faced allegations of abetment of suicide. According to the prosecution’s case, he had allegedly established a physical relationship with the victim on a promise of marriage, and when she learned that he was already married and confronted him, he responded with threats and mental cruelty and refused to marry her. The victim died by suicide on 31 January 2026, and an FIR was registered against the applicant.
The applicant had first approached the court seeking quashing of the FIR, and was directed instead to surrender and seek regular bail before the trial court. He did not comply. His continued non-appearance led to proclamation proceedings being initiated against him as a person absconding to avoid the execution of process. That proclamation was subsequently set aside on his assurance that he would cooperate with the investigating agency. He did not honour that assurance and again evaded the investigating agency, resulting in fresh proclamation proceedings declaring him a proclaimed offender. It was at this stage — after two rounds of evasion and a broken assurance to the court — that he filed the anticipatory bail application considered in this judgment.
What the Court Held
1. The normal rule bars anticipatory bail to a proclaimed offender. The Court held that “the law is discernible on the point that as per normal rule, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to an accused who is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of the process of the Court without offering any legal or plausible justification for his abscondence and consequently has been declared a proclaimed offender.” An applicant who has invited proclamation proceedings by deliberately staying away from the process of the court cannot, without more, invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction meant for anticipatory bail.
2. An exception exists only for a “rare and exceptional case.” The Court did not treat the bar as absolute in every circumstance — it recognised, consistent with settled Supreme Court authority, that anticipatory bail may still be granted to a proclaimed offender in a rare and exceptional case where the accused offers a legal or plausible justification for the abscondence. The burden of demonstrating such a case rests on the applicant.
3. Deliberate, repeated evasion foreclosed the exception on the facts. The Court held that the applicant’s conduct — surrendering to none of the court’s directions, breaking his own assurance to cooperate with the investigation after the first proclamation was set aside, and again evading the investigating agency to attract a fresh proclamation — amounted to “deliberate oblivion” of the court’s process. This conduct, the Court held, disentitled him from contending that his case was of the rare and exceptional kind warranting pre-arrest protection.
4. Application dismissed as not maintainable. On this basis, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, leaving the applicant to seek regular bail after surrendering before the trial court.
Precedents Relied On
The judgment applies the settled Supreme Court line on anticipatory bail and proclaimed offenders:
- Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 1331 of 2012 (decided 31 August 2012) — holding that, normally, when an accused is absconding and declared a proclaimed offender, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail.
- Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2021 (decided 21 October 2021) — reaffirming that a person declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
- State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 739 (decided 29 August 2023) — holding that anticipatory bail can be granted to a proclaimed offender only in an exceptional and rare case, and that such an accused cannot bypass the order declaring him a proclaimed offender by directly seeking anticipatory bail.
- Srikant Upadhyay and Others v. State of Bihar, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 232 — holding that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief not to be granted casually, particularly where the accused persistently evades the process of law, and that a pending anticipatory bail application does not by itself bar proclamation proceedings.
Takeaway
This decision applies, rather than departs from, the settled position that a proclaimed offender is ordinarily barred from anticipatory bail, with a narrow exception for a rare and exceptional case. What is significant on the facts is the sequence: an initial direction to surrender, a broken assurance that led to the first proclamation being set aside, and a second round of evasion that triggered a fresh proclamation. That pattern of repeated, deliberate non-cooperation was itself treated as foreclosing the exception — underscoring that an applicant who wants a court to treat their abscondence as excusable must be able to point to a specific, plausible justification, not merely argue the point in the abstract after having twice avoided the process of law.
Useful Resources
- LiveLaw — report of the judgment
- Indian Kanoon — Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012)
- Indian Kanoon — Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2021)
- Indian Kanoon — Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024)
- Indian Kanoon — State of Haryana v. Dharamraj (2023)
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.