A proclaimed offender declaration is unsustainable without strict compliance with mandatory proclamation requirements.

The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 13.09.2021 by which the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, declared him a proclaimed offender in FIR No. 127 dated 07.05.2020, registered under Sections 307 and 506 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana.

His anticipatory-bail application had earlier been dismissed, but he subsequently approached the High Court in CRM-M-20108-2022, where protection from coercive action was granted on 21.07.2022; that petition was later dismissed as withdrawn on 13.05.2026 due to bona fide miscommunication.

The petitioner claimed that he was a permanent resident of Village Sohangarh, District Ferozepur, whereas the proclamation was allegedly effected at Village Kadiya, District Ludhiana, where he had never resided.

He further contended that the investigation indicated that he had acted in self-defence, that he had pursued available legal remedies, and that there was no material showing deliberate abscondence or concealment.

The State opposed the petition, asserting that the petitioner had failed to appear before the Trial Court and that warrants and proclamation proceedings had consequently been validly issued.

Whether the proclamation proceedings and the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly the requirement of a reasoned satisfaction that the petitioner had absconded or was concealing himself.

Whether proclamation effected at an address allegedly unrelated to the petitioner’s ordinary residence was sufficient compliance with the statutory publication requirements.

Whether the petitioner’s pursuit of legal remedies and the absence of material showing deliberate evasion justified setting aside the impugned declaration.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Since the impugned order was passed on 13.09.2021, the legality of the proceedings was examined under Section 82 CrPC, corresponding to Section 84 BNSS.

Section 82 CrPC requires a prior warrant of arrest, material or a report indicating that the person has absconded or is concealing himself, and a judicial satisfaction that the warrant cannot be executed despite reasonable diligence.

The proclamation must specify the date and place of appearance, allowing at least thirty clear days, and must be published in all statutorily prescribed modes, including public reading, affixation at the person’s ordinary residence or village, and affixation at the Court-house.

Relying on Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319, and the authorities cited therein, the Court held that these requirements are mandatory and that non-compliance renders the proclamation and consequential proceedings a nullity.

The Court found that the record did not establish the requisite statutory satisfaction that the petitioner had deliberately absconded or concealed himself to evade arrest; mere non-appearance was insufficient.

The alleged proclamation had been effected at Village Kadiya, District Ludhiana, while the petitioner produced material showing his permanent address at Village Sohangarh, District Ferozepur. This discrepancy was material because the statutory publication procedure is intended to bring the proclamation to the person’s notice at the place where he ordinarily resides.

The petitioner’s repeated recourse to judicial remedies, including the earlier proceedings in which protection from coercive action had been granted, further weakened any inference of conscious evasion, although such conduct was not treated as independently conclusive.

In the absence of satisfactory proof of deliberate abscondence and strict compliance with the mandatory proclamation procedure, the declaration could not be sustained.

All proceedings arising solely from that declaration were quashed.

The Court clarified that the order did not affect the substantive FIR proceedings or express any opinion on the merits of the prosecution or the petitioner’s defence.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the Trial Court within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order and furnish appropriate bonds.

Any bail application was directed to be considered expeditiously on its merits, without being prejudiced by the earlier, now-set-aside, declaration as a proclaimed offender.