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

The petitioner, Jagdish Sharma, invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of: (i) the order dated 16 December 2024 issuing a non-bailable warrant of arrest; and (ii) the order dated 23 March 2026 directing issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in Deoghar Cyber P.S. Case No. 28 of 2021.

During the hearing, the petitioner did not press the challenge to the non-bailable warrant.

He challenged the proclamation order on the ground that the court had neither recorded satisfaction that he was absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest nor specified the time and place for his appearance.

The State opposed the petition, contending that issuance of the proclamation itself demonstrated the existence of sufficient material for the requisite satisfaction.

Whether a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. can be issued without the court recording its satisfaction that the accused is absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest.

Whether an order issuing a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is legally sustainable when it does not specify the time and place at which the accused is required to appear.

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

Section 82 Cr.P.C. requires the court issuing a proclamation to record its satisfaction that the person against whom the proclamation is issued is absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest. The court must also specify in the proclamation the time and place for the person’s appearance; these are mandatory requirements.

An order issued without compliance with these requirements is legally unsustainable, and its continuation may constitute an abuse of the process of law.

The High Court found that the order dated 23 March 2026 neither recorded the requisite judicial satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest nor fixed any time or place for his appearance.

The State’s submission that the issuance of the proclamation itself implied the existence of the necessary satisfaction was rejected because the satisfaction had to be expressly recorded in the order.

Since both mandatory statutory requirements were absent, the proclamation order suffered from a grave illegality and could not be sustained.

It quashed and set aside, qua the petitioner, the order dated 23 March 2026 directing issuance of the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

The trial court was permitted to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

The criminal miscellaneous petition was accordingly allowed.