Absconder/ Proclaimed Offender Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court Denies Relief To POCSO Accused

Denying anticipatory bail to a POCSO accused who allegedly raped a minor girl and her mother, the Allahabad High Court has observed that if anyone has been declared as an absconder/ proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C., he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.

The Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed thus while relying upon the apex court's ruling in the case of Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State Of Bihar LL 2021 SC 579, wherein the bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna had held thus:

"In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma (Supra), it is observed and held by this court that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of section 82 of Cr.PC, he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail"

The case against the bail applicant-accused

Applicant-Yogendra Kumar Mishra, who approached the Court seeking Anticipatory Bail after the rejection of his anticipatory bail application by Additional District and Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Allahabad.

The accused has been booked under Sections 376, 506, 328 IPC, 3/4 POCSO Act, and 67 I.T. Act for allegedly raping a minor girl and her mother/informant. As per the case of the accused, he and the first informant/mother had a consensual relationship even though the accused is a married man and the informant is living separately from her husband.

It was argued before the Court by the accused that the informant is a Teacher in a School where the applicant is working as a Class-IV employee and when the informant asked him to get married to him, he refused as he is a married person and therefore, she lodged an FIR against him on false allegations.

On the other hand, the state, opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant, argued that the informant, as well as her minor daughter, made a categorical statement against the applicant in their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that they were raped multiple times.

Lastly, it was also argeud that since the applicant was not cooperating with the investigation process, therefore, not only non a bailable warrant was issued against him, but now proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have also been initiated against the applicant, therefore, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.

Court's observations 

At the outset, the Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Prem Shankar Prasad case (supra), wherein the Apex Court, relying on the judgment passed in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma case (supra) had reiterated that if anyone has been declared an absconder/ proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C., he/she is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.

Further, the Court also noted that as per the prosecution's case, the accused-applicant had first inspired the confidence of the victims and when they imposed a complete trust on him, not only did he violate the trust of the First Informant but her minor daughter also.

The Court also opined that the averments made in the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also depicted that the applicant not only raped the First Informant but also raped her minor daughter and there is an allegation that the applicant has certain unsolicited video clips also and he had threatened to make the same viral and had blackmailed the victim and her mother.

In view of this, the Court held that the applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicant was not only declared proclaimed offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C. but a proclamation of attachment of property was also issued under Section 83 Cr.P.C.

"Even otherwise, on merit also, considering the specific averments made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by First Informant as well as her minor daughter, there are very serious allegations against the applicant and, therefore, no case for anticipatory bail is made out on merit also," the Court further held and DISMISSED his plea.

Case title - Yogendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 162

Click Here To Read/Download Order