Failure to record satisfaction and allow thirty clear days invalidates proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC.

Respondent No. 2 instituted a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the petitioner was summoned on 22.02.2023. He appeared on 24.03.2023 and was granted bail, but did not furnish surety bonds despite seeking time. He subsequently remained absent, leading to cancellation of bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants on 06.11.2023.

On 15.12.2023, the trial Court directed issuance of a proclamation, recording that the petitioner was intentionally avoiding the process of law. The proclamation was issued on 28.06.2024 with 26.07.2024 as the date of appearance—less than thirty days thereafter—and was reportedly executed on 17.07.2024. On 26.07.2024, the trial Court noted that thirty days had not elapsed and adjourned the matter. On 24.09.2024, after recording the statement of the serving official, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person and the complaint was consigned under Section 299 Cr.P.C.

The petitioner challenged the order under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the mandatory procedure under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had not been followed. He also undertook to surrender before the trial Court but apprehended arrest.

The Court applied Section 82 Cr.P.C., which requires a prior warrant of arrest, judicial satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be executed, and a proclamation requiring appearance at a specified place and time not less than thirty days from its publication.

Publication must be effected cumulatively by public reading at a conspicuous place, affixation at the accused’s residence or a conspicuous place in the locality, and affixation at the Court-house; the serving official’s statement must also be recorded, and the Court must record that the proclamation was duly published in the statutory manner.

These requirements are mandatory, and non-compliance renders the proclamation and subsequent proceedings a nullity.

The Court relied principally on Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 319, along with the authorities cited therein, including Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi, Gurappa Gugal v. State of Mysore, Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab, and Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of West Bengal.

Although the petitioner had contributed to the situation by failing to furnish surety and subsequently remaining absent, the trial Court was still required to strictly comply with Section 82 Cr.P.C.

The order initiating proclamation proceedings did not record the requisite judicial satisfaction, in legally sufficient terms, that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself with intent to evade arrest.

Further, the proclamation issued on 28.06.2024 required appearance on 26.07.2024, thereby allowing less than thirty days; the serving official’s report showed that the proclamation was received and executed only on 17.07.2024.

The trial Court itself recognised on 26.07.2024 that thirty days had not elapsed, but improperly adjourned the matter instead of issuing and publishing a fresh lawful proclamation.

The subsequent recording of the serving official’s statement and declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person on 24.09.2024 could not cure these foundational defects.

In view of the petitioner’s conduct, costs of ₹25,000 were imposed, payable to the District Legal Services Authority, Barnala.

The petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial Court within thirty days and, if he moved an application for bail, the same was to be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

If he failed to appear within that period, the petition would be deemed dismissed, preventing misuse of the relief obtained on the technical invalidity of the proclamation proceedings.