Proclaimed Offender Ineligible For Anticipatory Bail Unless No Prima Facie Offence Disclosed, Advocate Status Offers No Shield: Delhi High Court Under Section 84 BNSS

"Grant of anticipatory bail in such circumstances would convey wrong signals to the society at large that being a practicing advocate can be a license to indulge in such brazen lawlessness and would erode the public confidence in the rule of law." Delhi High Court on October 28, 2026, held that an absconding accused who has been declared a Proclaimed Offender cannot be granted anticipatory bail unless exceptional circumstances establish that prima facie no offence is made out against them, emphasizing that an applicant's standing as a practicing advocate confers no immunity against the rigours of criminal law.

The applicant, an advocate, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 04/2026 registered at Police Station Laxmi Nagar for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 329(4), 333, 74, 351(3), 79, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the applicant and his co-accused brutally assaulted a woman and her family members with gym rods over a property dispute, disrobed the victims inside a basement gym, and stripped one of them completely naked in full public glare. After the applicant repeatedly evaded summons and non-bailable warrants, the competent magistrate declared him a Proclaimed Offender under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether an accused declared as a Proclaimed Offender under Section 84 BNSS can be extended the discretionary benefit of anticipatory bail in the absence of an exceptional circumstance establishing that prima facie no offence is disclosed?

Whether the pendency of an anticipatory bail plea before the High Court renders an order declaring an accused as a Proclaimed Offender improper or invalid when no express interim stay was operating against such proclamation proceedings?

Whether professional standing as an advocate constitutes an exceptional circumstance militating against custodial interrogation for the recovery of critical physical evidence?

Justice Girish Kathpalia, examining the maintainability of pre-arrest bail by an absconder, observed that although there is no blanket bar against considering such an application, relief can only be extended in extraordinary cases where the record reveals no prima facie case against the accused.

General bar against extending pre-arrest bail to absconders governed by the prima facie innocence test

Relying upon the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncement in Balmukund Singh Gautam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court underscored that absconding accused persons cannot claim equitable relief as a matter of course.

The bench reiterated that granting pre-arrest protection to an absconder disincentivizes compliance with the legal process and prejudices co-accused persons who faithfully participate in trial proceedings.

"What is to be examined in the present case is as to whether this court can arrive at prima facie opinion that no case is made out against the present accused/applicant, which can entitle him of anticipatory bail, despite being a Proclaimed Offender," the Court recorded.

Barbaric public disrobing and grave psychological trauma preclude equitable relief

Assessing the severity of the allegations, the Court noted that the victims sustained grievous injuries, including a mandible fracture inflicted with a heavy gym rod, coupled with extreme public degradation.

The Court observed that the psychological trauma inflicted by stripping a victim naked on a public thoroughfare far exceeds ordinary physical hurt and constitutes an act of shocking lawlessness.

"The psychological trauma of being completely disrobed on a public road would take many years for Vasu to heal," the bench observed while rejecting contentions based on minor discrepancy in medical records regarding the side of facial injuries.

Professional status as advocate does not grant license for brazen lawlessness or evasion

Addressing the applicant’s plea that his status as a practicing lawyer justified protective indulgence, the Court firmly rejected any notion that legal practitioners enjoy special concessions when facing serious criminal accusations.

The bench noted with grave disapproval that the applicant had even recorded audio-visual footage of his police station interrogation while non-bailable warrants were alive, leading to the departmental suspension of the previous Investigating Officer.

"Of course, all advocates, being officers of the court, deserve respect. But that tenet cannot be extended to an advocate, who indulges in such brazen lawlessness, that too publicly and with such impunity," Justice Kathpalia held.

Pendency of anticipatory bail plea does not impede proclamation proceedings absent explicit stay

The Court repelled the contention that the magistrate acted improperly in declaring the applicant a Proclaimed Offender while his bail application remained pending before the High Court.

The bench clarified that since there was no interim order or express direction staying the magistrate's hands, the proclamation order passed under Section 84 BNSS was entirely valid and lawful.

Custodial interrogation indispensable for recovering missing surveillance equipment

The Court further held that custodial interrogation was indispensable since the Digital Video Recorder containing the basement CCTV footage of the assault was removed and remained unrecovered.

Consequently, finding neither any prima facie absence of guilt nor any exceptional circumstance justifying relief, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application along with the pending miscellaneous applications.

Date of Decision: October 28, 2026