Facts
The petitioner, Sher Singh, sought the quashing of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) issued on 20.11.2023 and proceedings initiated under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. on 19.12.2023
Source reference: p. 1-2Following the arrest of co-accused Vivek Kumar with 226 grams of charas, the investigation revealed that the petitioner had supplied the narcotics in exchange for payment via cash and Paytm
Source reference: p. 2Technical surveillance (CDR/CAF) placed both parties in Malana Village, Himachal Pradesh, at the time of procurement
Source reference: p. 3After multiple failed raids at the petitioner’s residence on 09.12.2023, 10.12.2023, and 11.12.2023, the Trial Court issued NBWs and subsequently initiated proclamation proceedings
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner was declared an absconder on 30.03.2024
Source reference: p. 4The petitioner argued he was away working as a tourist guide in high mountains and had no knowledge of the proceedings
Source reference: p. 4-5Issues
Whether there was any procedural illegality or infirmity in the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants and the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.
Source reference: p. 7Whether the petitioner’s non-appearance was justified by his alleged lack of knowledge and occupational absence from his residence
Source reference: p. 7-8Law Applied
Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which governs the proclamation for a person absconding when a warrant cannot be executed
Source reference: p. 1, 7Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), specifically Section 20 regarding the punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plants and substances
Source reference: p. 1-2The legal principle applied is that a person who deliberately evades the process of law and fails to join investigation despite service by affixation and publication is liable to be declared an absconder
Source reference: p. 9-10Reasoning
The Court found no procedural irregularity in the Special Judge’s orders. The record indicated that the investigating agency conducted multiple raids and followed statutory requirements for proclamation, including newspaper publication on 06.01.2024 and affixation at the petitioner’s residence and the court notice board
Source reference: p. 3, 8The Court rejected the petitioner’s defense of being away as a tourist guide; Call Detail Record (CDR) analysis demonstrated that the petitioner’s mobile location was in his village on the exact dates the raids and Section 82 proceedings were executed
Source reference: p. 9The Court noted that the petitioner’s family admitted to finding the notices affixed to their door, yet the petitioner deliberately switched off his phone to evade arrest
Source reference: p. 9Consequently, the Court determined the petitioner’s absence was a willful evasion of the legal process rather than a lack of notice
Source reference: p. 10Holding
The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the NBWs and Section 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings were validly issued and executed
The Court affirmed that the petitioner was rightly declared an absconder on 30.03.2024 due to his deliberate failure to join the investigation or appear before the Trial Court despite legal notice. No relief was granted to the petitioner
Source reference: p. 10Original Court PDF
Sher SinghvsState ( Govt. Of Nct Delhi)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in