Prayagraj, January 8, 2026 — The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the declaration of an accused as a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) does not create a complete bar on the consideration of an application for anticipatory bail. This landmark observation was made by Justice Gautam Chowdhary while granting anticipatory bail to a nurse, Monika, who had recently given birth and was facing serious criminal allegations.

The case involved Monika, a professional nurse, who had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case registered against her under Sections 316 (causing death of a quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide), 420 (cheating), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, as well as relevant provisions under the Medical Council Act. The allegations reportedly arose during her tenure as a nurse at a hospital.

A preliminary objection was raised by the counsel representing the informant, asserting that the applicant should not be granted anticipatory bail since a non-bailable warrant (NBW) had been issued against her and she had also been declared a proclaimed offender under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC. The counsel argued that in light of these developments, the court had no occasion to entertain her application for anticipatory bail.

Monika’s counsel, however, countered these arguments, emphasizing the applicant’s limited role in the alleged incident. It was argued that she was merely a midwife nurse working under the supervision of other co-accused individuals and had no direct involvement in the alleged offence. Additionally, the counsel highlighted that at the time when the non-bailable warrant was issued on October 10, 2025, the applicant was “in family way,” having given birth to a male child on October 6, 2025.

Justice Chowdhary carefully examined the circumstances of the case and noted that the issuance of a proclamation declaring an accused as a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC does not impose an absolute prohibition on the grant of anticipatory bail. Observing the humanitarian and procedural considerations in the present matter, the court held that the applicant’s personal circumstances warranted special consideration.

“It is not as if in all cases that there will be a total embargo on considering the application for grant of anticipatory bail,” Justice Chowdhary remarked. “In the present case, at the time when certain processes were issued against the applicant, she was in family way and was unable to appear before the court concerned. This Court finds it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.”

The decision underscores the principle that even when an individual is formally declared a proclaimed offender, courts retain the discretion to consider anticipatory bail applications, taking into account relevant factors such as personal circumstances, health, and the nature of the alleged offence.

The High Court’s observations also highlight the balance that the judiciary seeks to maintain between enforcing the law and protecting fundamental human rights, including the right to personal liberty. In this context, the court emphasized that procedural technicalities, including the issuance of proclamations and non-bailable warrants, must be weighed against the actual circumstances of the applicant before making determinations on anticipatory bail.

Monika’s counsel had submitted that the chargesheet in the case had been filed as early as November 2024, with cognizance taken in May 2025. Despite this, she could not appear in court at the time the non-bailable warrant was issued, due to her pregnancy and childbirth. The counsel argued that her absence during this critical period should not be construed as an attempt to evade justice.

The court took note of the fact that Monika had delivered her child just days before the issuance of the non-bailable warrant, and the period immediately following childbirth is one in which a mother requires rest, medical attention, and support. Denying anticipatory bail in such circumstances, the court observed, would amount to undue hardship and could potentially infringe upon her rights as a new mother.

In granting the anticipatory bail, Justice Chowdhary also emphasized that the applicant’s professional role as a nurse should be considered in assessing her involvement in the alleged crime. The court noted that she worked under the supervision of other co-accused and did not have direct decision-making authority in the events that led to the filing of criminal charges. This factor, combined with her recent childbirth, weighed heavily in favor of granting anticipatory bail.

The Allahabad High Court’s ruling serves as a significant precedent, reaffirming that the status of a proclaimed offender does not automatically eliminate the possibility of anticipatory bail. It reinforces the judiciary’s discretion to evaluate each case on its individual merits, taking into account personal, medical, and social circumstances alongside the legal framework.

Legal experts have noted that this judgment could have broader implications for how courts handle anticipatory bail applications filed by individuals who have been declared absconders. While the law empowers authorities to declare an accused as a proclaimed offender to ensure that they face trial, the courts retain the authority to exercise compassion and pragmatism when circumstances so require.

The decision is also likely to prompt law enforcement agencies to exercise greater care when issuing proclamations and non-bailable warrants, ensuring that procedural actions do not inadvertently penalize individuals for circumstances beyond their control, such as health emergencies or family responsibilities.

In addition to procedural and humanitarian considerations, the case also highlights the importance of proportionality in criminal justice. The High Court’s order balances the need to uphold the rule of law with the recognition that rigid application of statutory provisions can sometimes lead to unfair or unjust outcomes. By granting anticipatory bail, the court has signaled that legal processes must be applied in a manner that is sensitive to individual circumstances, without compromising the integrity of the justice system.

The ruling also underscores the broader role of the judiciary in safeguarding the rights of women, particularly in cases involving pregnancy and maternity. Courts across India have previously acknowledged that the health and welfare of a mother and child are critical considerations in judicial decision-making. Justice Chowdhary’s observations in this case are consistent with this principle, reflecting a nuanced understanding of the interplay between criminal law and human rights.

While Monika has been granted anticipatory bail, the underlying criminal case remains active, and all legal proceedings against her will continue in accordance with the law. The High Court’s decision does not absolve her of responsibility but ensures that her liberty is protected until she is required to appear before the appropriate judicial forum.

The ruling has been welcomed by legal practitioners and human rights advocates, who view it as a reaffirmation of the courts’ discretion to consider individual circumstances in the application of criminal law. It also serves as a reminder that the criminal justice system must remain flexible and humane, especially in cases involving vulnerable individuals or those with compelling personal circumstances.

In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court’s order in Monika’s case establishes that the mere fact of being declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC does not create an absolute bar to anticipatory bail. By taking into account her recent childbirth, professional role, and absence from court due to family responsibilities, the court has demonstrated a measured and empathetic approach to criminal justice. This ruling may guide future cases where individuals seek anticipatory bail under similar circumstances, balancing the enforcement of law with the protection of individual rights.