In a significant legal clarification, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that an accused person declared an absconder under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can still seek and be granted anticipatory bail. The judgment came while the court was hearing the plea of a woman, a midwife nurse named Monika, who sought protection from arrest after a trial court issued a non-bailable warrant and a proclamation against her under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC.
The Core Legal Question and the Court's Verdict
Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, presiding over the case, delivered a clear verdict on January 8, 2026. The court held that the issuance of a proclamation declaring an accused an absconder does not create an absolute embargo on considering an application for anticipatory bail. This decision reinforces the discretionary power of courts to examine the specific circumstances of each case, even when coercive legal processes have been initiated.
"It is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for grant of anticipatory bail," the court observed. In Monika's case, the bench noted that at the time the processes were issued against her, she was pregnant and later in labour, which prevented her from appearing before the trial court. Considering these facts, the nature of the accusations, and her role, the High Court found it a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail.
Background and Arguments in the Case
The case originated from an FIR registered against Monika under Sections 316 (causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide), 420 (cheating), 504 (insult to provoke breach), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, along with relevant sections of the Medical Council Act, 1956.
The legal journey was protracted. After the complaint was filed, the trial court initially granted her interim anticipatory bail. However, when her full anticipatory bail plea was later rejected by the trial court, she approached the High Court. A coordinate bench granted her interim protection initially, but her plea was eventually rejected. She filed a fresh anticipatory bail application after the chargesheet was submitted, leading to the present ruling.
The informant's counsel strongly opposed the bail, arguing that since a non-bailable warrant and proclamation had been issued, the court could not entertain an anticipatory bail application. Monika's counsel countered this, explaining that she was in labour and had just given birth when the warrant was issued. They further submitted that she had moved several applications for exemption from personal appearance before the trial court due to her condition, but the court issued the warrant without considering these pleas.
Legal Precedent and Final Order
In its reasoning, the Allahabad High Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The apex court had previously established that a declaration under Section 82 CrPC does not impose an absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail. The High Court reiterated this principle, emphasizing a holistic assessment of the case's facts.
Ultimately, the court allowed Monika's plea. The order stated, "In the event of arrest of the applicant- Monika, involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial." The bail was granted subject to specific conditions that the court imposed.
This ruling underscores a vital aspect of criminal jurisprudence: legal procedures are tools for justice, not inflexible barriers. It affirms that courts retain the authority to consider individual hardships and circumstances, ensuring that the process itself does not become punitive before guilt is established.
