The present case is related to the non-appearance of the accused/appellant before the Trial Court despite the issuance of summons, bailable warrant, non-bailable warrant and proclamation under Sections 82 & Section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After the disobedience of the order of summons, the court issued the bailable warrant and thereafter, the non-bailable warrant was issued to secure the presence of the accused before the court. However, when the non-bailable warrant did not succeed in securing the presence of the accused, the court issued a proclamation by declaring the accused as a proclaimed offender/absconder.

Whether the Accused/Appellant would be entitled to anticipatory/pre-arrest bail despite the non-bailable warrant and proclamation is pending against him?

“Even after the issuance of nonbailable warrants they did not care to appear before the Trial Court and did not apply for regular bail after its recalling. It is a fact that even after coming to know about the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.PC., they did not take any steps to challenge the same or to enter appearance before the Trial Court to avert the consequences. Such conduct of the appellants in the light of the aforesaid circumstances leaves us with no hesitation to hold that they are not entitled to seek the benefit of pre-arrest bail.”

The Supreme Court held that an accused would not be entitled to pre-arrest bail if the non- bailable warrant and the proclamation under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. is pending against him.