Court must specify time and place for appearance when issuing proclamation under Section 82 CrPC.

The petitioner, Lalita Devi, was an accused in G.R. case no. 1406 of 2017 (S) arising out of Dhurwa P.S. case no. 69 of 2017.

On February 8, 2022, the Judicial Magistrate-XXVII, Ranchi, cancelled the petitioner’s bail and issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest.

Subsequently, on January 7, 2025, the learned JMFC, XXX, Ranchi, issued a proclamation against the petitioner under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking to quash the Section 82 CrPC order and the bail cancellation order.

During the proceedings, the petitioner withdrew the challenge against the bail cancellation.

1. Whether the order dated 07.01.2025, issuing a proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC, was legally sustainable despite the court failing to fix a specific time and place for the petitioner’s appearance.

The Court applied Section 82 of the CrPC (corresponding to provisions under the BNSS) and established precedents regarding the mandatory requirements for issuing proclamations.

The core principle is that a court must: (a) record its subjective satisfaction that the accused is absconding or concealing themselves to evade arrest.

(b) explicitly specify a mandatory time and place for the appearance of the accused within the order itself.

Failure to comply with these statutory requirements renders the order for proclamation an abuse of the process of law.

The Court examined the impugned order dated January 7, 2025, passed by the JMFC, Ranchi. While the lower court had recorded a satisfaction that the petitioner was absconding from her house, it failed to adhere to the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 82 CrPC.

Specifically, the High Court observed that the learned JMFC did not fix any specific time or place for the petitioner to appear.

The Court reasoned that since these requirements are mandatory under the settled principles of law, the omission by the JMFC constituted a "grave illegality".

Consequently, the continuation of the proclamation order without such specifics was deemed unsustainable.

The Court quashed and set aside the order dated January 7, 2025, passed by the JMFC, XXX, Ranchi, qua the petitioner.

The Court further granted liberty to the learned JMFC to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law.

The prayer regarding the quashing of the bail cancellation order dated February 8, 2022, was rejected as not pressed.