Anticipatory bail is not maintainable when the trial court has issued a proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC because the accused is declared as an absconder or proclaimed offender, which reflects a deliberate attempt to evade arrest and the legal process.

Legal Reasoning:
1. Violation of Judicial Process: Once a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is issued, it shows that the accused has willfully evaded summons or warrant and is deliberately avoiding the court process. Granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances would defeat the very purpose of the proclamation proceedings.

2. Clean Hands Doctrine: A person who is declared a proclaimed offender cannot approach the court for a discretionary relief like anticipatory bail, as they are not coming with "clean hands." Courts generally do not entertain bail applications from fugitives from justice.

3. Public Policy and Precedent: Courts have held that allowing anticipatory bail to a person who has been declared an absconder would send a wrong message and weaken the enforcement of criminal law. For example, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 730], the Supreme Court held that an absconder or a proclaimed offender is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

4. Section 438 CrPC – Discretionary in Nature: Anticipatory bail under Section 438 is not an absolute right, and courts consider various factors such as conduct, cooperation, and seriousness of the offence. Evading the law and getting declared as a proclaimed offender weighs heavily against the accused.

Anticipatory bail is not maintainable after a proclamation is issued because the accused is treated as an absconder under Section 82 CrPC. Courts do not grant protection to those who evade legal process. The remedy then lies in surrendering and applying for regular bail.