A Section 82 proclamation is invalid without recorded absconding satisfaction and a specified time and place for appearance.

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash orders dated 21.08.2017 and 21.11.2017 in Complaint Case No. 911 of 2001.

The Magistrate had directed issuance of a non-bailable warrant after previously ordering a bailable warrant, but the record did not show that the bailable warrant’s execution report had been received.

The Magistrate subsequently issued a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. without recording satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest, or specifying a time and place for his appearance.

1. Whether the Magistrate could issue a non-bailable warrant without the record showing receipt of the execution report for the previously issued bailable warrant.

2. Whether the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was valid without recorded satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest, and without specifying a time and place for appearance.

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

It held that, in the circumstances of this case, the Magistrate was required to ensure that the execution report for the previously issued bailable warrant had been received before issuing a non-bailable warrant.

For a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the issuing court must record its satisfaction that the accused is absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest and specify in the order the time and place for appearance.

The record contained no material showing that the execution report for the bailable warrant had been received before the Magistrate ordered a non-bailable warrant.

The Court therefore found the latter order unsustainable.

The proclamation order also omitted both the required finding about the petitioner’s absconding or concealment and the time and place for appearance.

Because these requirements had not been met, the proclamation was issued in violation of the mandatory requirements identified by the Court.

It left the Magistrate at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition.