Once Declared Proclaimed Person, Anticipatory Bail Is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Rohma Qamruddin v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 12 February 2026
Citation: CRM-M-51900-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that once proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (corresponding provisions under BNSS) have been initiated and an accused has been declared a proclaimed person, a petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Filing of a pre-arrest bail petition cannot be treated as appearance or compliance with process of law. The Court reiterated that an absconding accused is not entitled to discretionary relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C./Section 482 BNSS.
Summary: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in FIR No.0050 dated 07.07.2024 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 465, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Division No.2, Ludhiana.
As per the prosecution case, the complainants alleged that the petitioner and her husband induced them to purchase scrap metal from a sugar mill in Uttar Pradesh and dishonestly obtained ₹80 lakhs. The co-accused allegedly failed to secure the requisite NOC and issued dishonoured cheques. It was alleged that the petitioner actively participated in the cheating.
The petitioner’s earlier anticipatory bail applications were dismissed. Her husband was arrested. During investigation, the petitioner failed to join proceedings and was declared a proclaimed person on 03.04.2025 after initiation of proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
Before the High Court, it was argued that she was falsely implicated due to being the wife of the co-accused, that it was essentially a monetary dispute, and that custodial interrogation was not required. Reliance was placed on Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1.
The State opposed the petition, contending that she had absconded, was declared a proclaimed person, and was required for effective investigation.
The Court examined the maintainability of the petition and held that once proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. are initiated and the accused is declared a proclaimed person, anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Reliance was placed on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, AIR 2024 SC 1600 and Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 14 SCC 516, wherein the Supreme Court held that an absconding accused seeking pre-arrest bail after initiation of proclamation proceedings is not entitled to such relief.
The Court also relied upon Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Sumitha Pradeep v. Arun Kumar C.K., observing that absence of custodial interrogation by itself does not confer an indefeasible right to anticipatory bail.
The reliance placed on Daljit Singh was held to be misplaced, as in that case the accused had already been acquitted and the issue related to continuation of proceedings under Section 174-A IPC.
Decision: The petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The Court clarified that observations made in the order were confined to the issue of anticipatory bail and shall not affect the merits of the case.