Siddharth ORDER
Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior counsel assisted by and Sri Pranav Tiwary, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Pritam Singh Sandhu, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 appears in person.
2. The applicant has been implicated in this case along with 15 other co-accused persons for committing the offences alleged in the FIR under different sections of Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submits that number of co-accused persons have been granted anticipatory bails, stay of arrest and regular bail. The offences alleged are of civil nature and engaging the attention of civil court hence the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on anticipatory bail.
4. The informant/opposite party no. 2, appearing in person, has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application. He has submitted that the applicant has not come with clean hands to this court. Proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against the applicant on 12.01.2024 directing him to appear before the court on 26.02.2024 but he failed. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C. was initiated against him vide order dated 17.01.2024. He approached this court praying for quashing of the aforesaid impugned orders passed by C.J.M., Ghaziabad vide Criminal Misc. Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2605 of 2024. It was submitted before this court that the applicant may be permitted to file objection under Section 84(2) Cr.P.C. before the court concerned against the order passed U/S 82/83 Cr.P.C. within two weeks. This court by the order dated 11.03.2024 granted liberty to the applicant to file his objection under Section 84(2) Cr.P.C. before the court concerned within two weeks from the date of order. The opposite party no. 2 has submitted that as per Section 84(2) Cr.P.C., applicant was not entitled to file any objection since it is clear from Section 84(1) Cr.P.C. that the same can only be filed by a person, other than the proclaimed person, on the ground that the objector has interest in such property and it is not liable to attachment under Section 83 Cr.P.C. He has submitted that the applicant was a proclaimed offender and he had no right to file objection under Section 84(1)(2) Cr.P.C. His objection was rightly rejected by the C.J.M. Being proclaimed offender he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail by this court.
5. He has further pointed out that the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad has refused to grant anticipatory bail to applicant because he was found to be a proclaimed absconder.
6. Aft........