Introduction:
The Allahabad High Court, in Mashu @ Aman Joshi v. State of U.P. (2026 LiveLaw (AB) 409), reaffirmed the settled legal principle that an accused who deliberately evades investigation and court proceedings and is declared a proclaimed offender cannot ordinarily claim the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that anticipatory bail is meant to protect innocent persons from unnecessary arrest and not those who intentionally avoid the process of law. Unless exceptional circumstances are shown, a proclaimed offender is not entitled to pre-arrest protection.
The case arose from an FIR alleging that the applicant had induced the deceased woman into a physical relationship on the promise of marriage despite already being married. When the woman later discovered his marital status and confronted him, he allegedly refused to marry her and threatened her. According to the prosecution, the applicant’s conduct subjected the deceased to continuous mental harassment, ultimately leading her to die by suicide on January 31, 2026. He was booked for abetment of suicide and sought anticipatory bail before the High Court after repeatedly avoiding investigation.
Arguments of the Parties:
The applicant argued that no offence of abetment of suicide was made out against him. It was submitted that merely ending a relationship or refusing to marry could not, by itself, amount to instigation or intentional aid for the commission of suicide. He contended that there was no evidence to establish the necessary intention required for the offence and therefore sought the protection of anticipatory bail.
The State and the informant strongly opposed the application. They pointed out that the applicant had earlier approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, but he had been directed to surrender and apply for regular bail. Instead of complying with the order, he deliberately remained absent, resulting in proclamation proceedings under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The respondents further submitted that although the proclamation proceedings were once set aside after the applicant assured the Court that he would cooperate with the investigation, he once again failed to honour his undertaking. He continued to evade the investigating agency, compelling the authorities to initiate fresh proclamation proceedings. His conduct, according to the prosecution, clearly demonstrated that he was intentionally avoiding the legal process and therefore did not deserve the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
Court’s Judgment:
The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, holding that the applicant’s conduct clearly disentitled him from claiming the extraordinary protection of pre-arrest bail. The Court observed that the applicant had repeatedly ignored judicial directions, failed to cooperate with the investigation despite giving an assurance before the Court, and deliberately kept himself beyond the reach of the investigating agency.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2021), wherein it was held that an absconder or proclaimed offender is ordinarily not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court also referred to Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012), where the Supreme Court held that once an accused has been declared a proclaimed offender after absconding, there is ordinarily no question of granting anticipatory bail. The Bench further placed reliance on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024) and State of Haryana v. Dharamraj (2023), both of which reiterate that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and cannot be used to shield persons who deliberately evade the criminal justice process.
Applying these principles, the High Court found that the applicant had shown complete disregard for the authority of the Court. His repeated failure to appear before the investigating agency and the initiation of proclamation proceedings demonstrated a conscious attempt to avoid legal proceedings. Such conduct could not be treated as a rare or exceptional circumstance warranting protection under anticipatory bail.
The Court clarified that anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy intended to protect individuals against arbitrary arrest and not to reward those who deliberately obstruct investigation. Since the applicant had failed to offer any plausible explanation for his abscondence and had repeatedly violated his assurance to cooperate, the Court held that his application was not maintainable.
Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea and reiterated that a proclaimed offender who intentionally evades investigation and court proceedings cannot ordinarily seek the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.