JUDGMENT B.A. Patil, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioneraccused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.24/2011 registered by Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru (pending on the file of II ACMM, Bengaluru) for the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri Chandraiah for the petitioner-accused by virtual hearing and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Mahesh Shetty for the respondent State. 3. The gist of the complaint is that on 24.10.2011 at about 1.30 p.m. when the complainant was standing in bus stop near cool point, 4th block of Jayanagar, at that time unknown persons threatened the complainant and took him near the Thilaknagar Medicare Hospital and snatched his 22 grams golden chain and escaped from that place. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner-accused that other accused persons have been already enlarged on bail. On the ground of parity the petitioner-accused is also entitled to be released on bail. It is his further submission that he was not aware of the fact of pending of the case and as such, he did not appear before the Court. It is his further submission that he is ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and to release petitioner-accused on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the case has been registered as against the petitioner-accused in the year 2011 and the alleged incident has taken place on 24.10.2011. After investigation the charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is absconding from the date of registration of the crime. The learned Magistrae has issued proclamation and NBW as against the petitioneraccused. It is his further submission that one proclamation has been issued as against the petitioneraccused that he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. In that light, he has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 2014 SC 626 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh V/s Pradeep Sharma. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 7. In that light, he has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 2014 SC 626 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh V/s Pradeep Sharma. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 7. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that he was not aware of the pendency of the case and after coming to know that he has immediately filed the bail application. But the records indicates that the learned Magistrate has issued proclamation and NBW as against the petitioner-accused and as held by the Hon ble Apex Curt in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh (quoted supra) at para Nos.12 and 13 which has been observed as under; 12. Recently, in Lavesh V. Stae (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730 , this Court, (of which both of us wee parties) considered the scope of granting relief under Section 438 via-a-vis to a person who was declared as an absconder or proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code. In para 12, this Court held as under: 12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as absconder . Normally, when the accused is absconding and declared as a proclaimed offender , there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail . It is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. In the case on hand, a perusal of the materials i.e., confessional statements of Sanjay Namdev, Pawan Kumar alias Ravi and Vijay alias Monu Brahambhatta reveals that the respondents administered poisonous substance to the deceased. Further, the statements of witnesses that were recorded and the report of the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur dated 21.03.2012 have confirmed the existence of poison in milk rabri. Further, the statements of witnesses that were recorded and the report of the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur dated 21.03.2012 have confirmed the existence of poison in milk rabri. Further, it is brought to out notice that warrants were issued on 21.11.2012 for the arrest of the respondents herein. Since they were not available/traceable, a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code was issued on 29.11.2012. The documents (Annexure-P13) produced by the State clearly show that the CJM, Chhindwara, M.P. issued a proclamation requiring the appearance of both the respondents/accused under Section 82 of the Code to answer the complaint on 29.12.2012. All these materials were neither adverted to nor considered by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail and the High Court, without indicating any reason except stating facts and circumstances of the case , granted an order of anticipatory bail to both the accused. It is relevant to point out that both the accused are facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC. In such serious offences, particularly, the respondents/accused being proclaimed offenders, we are unable to sustain the impugned orders of granting anticipatory bail. The High Court failed to appreciate that it is a settled position of law that where the accused has been declared as an absconder and has not co-operated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail. 13. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned orders of the High Court dated 10.01.2013 and 17.01.2013 in Misc. Criminal case Nos.9996 of 2012 and 15283 of 2012 respectively are set aside. Consequently, the subsequent order of the CJM dated 20.02.2013 in Crime No.1034 of 2011 releasing the accused on bail after taking them into custody in compliance with the impugned order of the High Court is also set aside. On going through the said paragraphs it indicates that if a person who has been declared as absconding and proclamation has been issued as a proclaimed offender entitled to the anticipatory bail. In light of the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court the petitioneraccused is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail as the proclamation is said to have been issued as against him. In that light, the petition is dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.