Proclaimed Offenders Not Entitled To Privilege Of Pre-Arrest Bail: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Highlighting the extraordinary nature of pre-arrest bail and its sparing use the Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently reiterated that once a person is declared a proclaimed offender he is not entitled to the liberty of Pre-Arrest bail.Justice Rajesk Kainthala made these observations in a case centered around petitioner Dildar Khan alias Sonu Khan, who was accused of possessing a...
Highlighting the extraordinary nature of pre-arrest bail and its sparing use the Himachal Pradesh High Court has recently reiterated that once a person is declared a proclaimed offender he is not entitled to the liberty of Pre-Arrest bail.
Justice Rajesk Kainthala made these observations in a case centered around petitioner Dildar Khan alias Sonu Khan, who was accused of possessing a commercial quantity of heroin (333.63 grams) found in a backpack on an HRTC bus. Khan, however, absconded after the police initiated the investigation and was declared a proclaimed offender by the Court.
In his plea, the petitioner, represented by counsel Ashok Kumar Thakur, asserted false implication, contending that he had left the spot without objection. In opposition, Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, highlighted the petitioner's status as a proclaimed offender, presenting CCTV evidence linking him to the backpack and heroin. The State argued that the petitioner, having absconded for over a year, posed a flight risk if granted pre-arrest bail.
Justice Kainthla, after meticulously examining the arguments presented by both sides referenced P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 and observed that Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy and should hence be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
Drawing upon the precedent set in State of Haryana v. Dharamraj 2023, Justice Kainthla asserted that a person declared a proclaimed offender loses the right to pre-arrest bail.
Observing that there was sufficient evidence against the petitioner the court noted the presence of CCTV footage clearly showing Khan boarding the bus with the backpack containing the heroin.
“No explanation has been provided regarding the petitioner having the backpack at the time of the boarding of the bus. Just, because the backpack was not kept by the petitioner with him does not mean that he was not in possession of the same”, the court recorded.
This, coupled with the recovered heroin exceeding the commercial quantity threshold stipulated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, established sufficient grounds to deny bail the court said while dismissing the plea.
Case Title: Dildar Khan @ Sonu Khan Vs State of H.P
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 77