Manju Tiwari v. State Of Punjab

    

  

 

















  














 !"#$%$ &' (   ) 



















(( $ $ &* +*%,% -    (((%. &"&

' /0 (-

--   


















 




 


!
 



" #### --  1( $
%


&



'()

** 




%






+,!
-.( 
./.0&.&(
1 2 
304



'&.
'.5 '56
'5/
'5)
'/0
0&.37
,*



*
+8  9
+8  & $

 





 






-

 
'&.
,*

"
 







 "
%
"

%



"



 "
 !5.0....:3



%

"
%

  

%
 




 
"%




  
'.5
,*

"
 







  
;





'56
'5/
'5)

'/0 ,*










 

 ! 

.(.5&.05

%



  %
"
,



+,!


 3 

+,!
-0'5'


.<0&&.0)






 
%
 
"
%


'.5
'0<
'&.
'5/
'5)

'/0 ,*
7



"%





%

"%

 







7-
$
-
 





$



 


%
 =






 


 
 


"






 

%







 
 

05./&.&'
-


 "

  "







3


 



"




3 

 
 
"



&600&.&'

%


,* +8 
$
%





" 

2
 


 





%





%


> 
 





 



               
 !   

   " 

#  $ %& %

''


!

(&)**#   

+ #   $ %&

 %

,
?






+,!
 

 


prima facie "
 





 9


*"%


3 
$


 




%

' ,




 


 6

 


+,!
 


"

 


 




"

%
 


"
%



" 

!&

  "

!5.0....:3




"
%


 

:

?"

@

:



"

@
$ 





" 
 






"
%
$
!  
.(.5&.05



%


 
 *
B 



"
C

! 
  



 


7




"
-
@  


"


*"%


 .<0.&.0)


 
%

 




 "
%

%


"



 

 


"
%
$

 "

A  
A 



$

 


" %



 


"


 
 
!


*"%
$ 
%



prima facie "
 
$




"


D   




%  - )&  % .%  .

 #



/

'0,




"

"
  







 5 ,
"%
 



"




 






05./&.&'
$
 

"





&600&.&'


,* +8 



 3 "Case was fixed for awaiting presence of accused BN Tiwari, Kush Tiwari, Manju Tiwari and Alok Pandey. Mandatory period expired. Neither accused nor anybody appeared on behalf of above accused. Therefore, accused BN Tiwari, Kush Tiwari, Manju Tiwari and Alok Pandey are hereby declared proclaimed persons. Necessary intimation in this regard be sent to concerned quarter. File be consigned to record room." / ;




%



  
> 
  ,

1 4


 3 "10. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and declared as "absconder".

Normally, when the accused is "absconding" and declared as a "proclaimed offender", there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail."

1"
 4 ,
 !1 4


 3

"21. As regards the implication of proclamation having been issued against the appellant, we have no hesitation in making it clear that any person, who is declared as an 'absconder' and remains out of reach of the investigating agency and thereby stands directly at conflict with law, ordinarily, deserves no concession or indulgence. By way of reference, we may observe that in relation to the indulgence of pre1arrest bail in terms of section 438 CrPC, 1973 this Court has repeatedly said that when an accused is absconding and is declared as proclaimed offender, there is no question of giving him the benefit of section 438 CrPC, 1973. For example, Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar and Anr.: (2021) SCC OnLine SC 955.

What has been observed and said in relation to section 438 CrPC, 1973 applies with more vigour to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The submissions on behalf of the appellant for consideration of his case because of application of stringent provisions impinging his fundamental rights does not take away the impact of the blameworthy conduct of the appellant. Any claim towards fundamental rights also cannot be justifiably made without the person concerned himself adhering to and submitting to the process of law."

1"
 4 ,

!

(&)**1 4


 3 "24. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and 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. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very

cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. 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 pre1arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant."

 ) ,








prima facie
"
  




 "




&

 





"




 



%

$


 
" 
--   

(    -  )3 3*%.

4$&56* % &"'%6 )3 3**. *

78' %6