HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1116 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for State. 2.The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.359 of 2020 under sections 307 I.P.C., 3/5A(1)/5B/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughters Act, 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, P.S. Baldiraj, district Sultanpur. 3.It is alleged in the prosecution case as per first information report which was registered on 7.11.2020, while the SHO Amrendra Singh along with the police party was near Para crossing, they received a secret information from an informer that in the orchard of Ramyagya Chaturvedi, some persons are loading cow progeny in a truck which is unnumbered. Upon that information, the truck was sought to be apprehended. It is further alleged that the accused tried to run the over the police personnel, however, they were saved. On the spot, four persons were arrested. It is also alleged that the applicant and the co-accused Meraz Ahmad ran away. 4.Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated only on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused Meraz Ahmad who has been granted anticipatory bail by the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Firoz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sonu @ Mohd. Sonu .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Sessions Judge, Sultanpur vide order dated 15.12.2020. 5.Learned A.G.A. while opposing the application submits that the applicant was absconding. He went to Saudi Arabia and proceedings under sections 82/83 CrPC have been initiated against him. His property has also been attached. He, on the basis of instructions submits that proclamation under section 82 CrPC was duly published in the local newspaper. Notice under section 41-A CrPC was also issued. The applicant went abroad after the first information report was registered. Therefore, in view of the judgment in Lavesh versus State (NCT of Delhi) (2012)8 SCC 730, after being declared as proclaimed offender, anticipatory bail application cannot be granted. 6.Learned counsel for the applicant rebutting this argument submits that although, the applicant was in Saudi Arabia but after coming to know of the incident from his family members, he came back. He undertakes that he will not leave the country till conclusion of the trial. He has relied on a judgment of Supreme Court in Asha Dubey versus The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No.4564 of 2024 as also order dated 6.9.2023 passed in Anticipatory Bail No.1981 of 2023 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. 7.I have considered the submission and perused the record. It appears that proclamation under section 82 CrPC was duly published in the local newspaper. Notice under section 41-A CrPC was also issued after the first information report was registered. The applicant went abroad. He has been declared proclaimed offender following the due process. Prima facie, it appears that the applicant has been declared proclaimed offender in terms of section 82 CrPC, thus, considering the judgment in Lavesh(supra), the applicant is not entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail. As regards the judgment in Khalid Anwar (supra), in that case, the court found that proclamation was not issued in terms of section 82(1) CrPC as it was not published whereas in this case, it has been published. Custodial interrogation in this case may be required. 8.Accordingly, the anticipatory bail being an exceptional jurisdiction and also the fact that the applicant was absconding, he cannot claim parity with the bail order of Meraz Ahmad, co-accused against whom, although, same ABAIL No. 1116 of 2025 2 role has been assigned, however, there is nothing against Meraz Ahmad. There was no material that he was absconding or proclamation under section 82/83 CrPC was issued, therefore, no case of parity is also made out. 9.At this this state, the applicant's counsel submits that he may be granted liberty to file regular bail application and the same may be decided in the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)No.5191 of 2021. 10.In view of the above, prayer for anticipatory bail is refused and the application is dismissed. However, it is provided that in case the applicant files a regular bail application within two weeks from today, the same be decided expeditiously, strictly in view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra). October 13, 2025 kkb/ ABAIL No. 1116 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench