Seema Sultana vs State By Udayagiri Police Station
2022 Latest Caselaw 2448 Kant

                                 1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                           BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.811/2022

BETWEEN:

1.     SEEMA SULTANA
       W/O SHARIFF AHMED,
       AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.69, 11TH CROSS,
       SULTAN ROAD, 'C' BLOCK,
       GOUSIYANAGAR,
       MYSURU-570019.

2.     SMT. REHANA
       W/O ASLAM SHARIFF,
       AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.286, 'C' BLOCK,
       GOUSIYANAGAR,
       MYSURU-570019.                     ... PETITIONERS

       [BY SRI DR.LOKESH B.N., ADVOCATE (THRUOGH VC)]

AND:

STATE BY
UDAYAGIRI POLICE STATION
MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSURU,
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.                        ... RESPONDENT

             [BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP]
                                 2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.159/2014 OF
UDAYAGIRI POLICE STATION, MYSURU CITY, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 OF I.T.P.
ACT ON THE FILE OF THE II A.F.M.COURT, MYSURU IN
C.C.NO.521/2015.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by

accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.159/2014 seeking anticipatory

bail.

2. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for the respondent-State would submit that already proclamation

is issued against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2.

3. Therefore, once the proclamation is issued, petition

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

4. The Apex Court also in the judgment in the case of

LAVESH VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) reported in (2012) 8

SCC 730 in paragraph No.12 has held as under:

"12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was 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 he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail."

Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed as not

maintainable.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST