A Section 82 CrPC proclamation is invalid without recorded satisfaction and specified appearance time and place.

The petitioner challenged orders dated 21.06.2022 and 16.10.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Hazaribagh, in G (F) Case No. 35 of 2016, arising from alleged offences under Sections 9, 26, 29 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioner did not press the challenge to the order dated 16.10.2025.

In relation to the order dated 21.06.2022, he contended that the Magistrate had directed issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without recording satisfaction that he was absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest and without specifying the time and place for his appearance.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the Magistrate’s direction itself demonstrated the existence of sufficient material for issuing the proclamation.

Whether the order dated 21.06.2022 directing issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was legally sustainable when the Magistrate had not recorded satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest.

Whether the proclamation order was invalid for failure to specify the time and place at which the petitioner was required to appear.

Whether the challenge to the order dated 16.10.2025 could be considered when the petitioner did not press that prayer.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It applied Section 82 Cr.P.C., which requires the issuing court to be satisfied that the person against whom the proclamation is issued has absconded or is concealing himself to evade arrest.

The Court held that the issuing order must itself specify the time and place for the accused’s appearance and that compliance with these requirements is mandatory.

An order issuing proclamation without recording the requisite satisfaction or fixing the time and place of appearance is legally unsustainable, and its continuation may amount to an abuse of the process of law.

The Magistrate’s order dated 21.06.2022 did not record any satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest.

It also failed to identify the time and place at which he was required to appear.

The Court rejected the State’s submission that the mere issuance of the proclamation established the existence of the necessary satisfaction; the statutory conditions had to be reflected in the order itself.

Since both mandatory requirements under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were absent, the proclamation order constituted a grave illegality and could not be sustained.

It quashed and set aside the order dated 21.06.2022 issuing the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., insofar as it related to the petitioner.

The Magistrate or the successor court was permitted to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was accordingly allowed to that limited extent.