Gujarat HC Quashes Proclamation Against Accused, Finding No Material He Was Hiding To Evade Warrant

The petitioner challenged the Sessions Court’s order dated 6 August 2026 issuing a proclamation against him under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in Sessions Case No. 7 of 2026.

He argued that the record contained no adequate material showing that he had absconded or concealed himself to frustrate execution of the warrant. The State’s counsel acknowledged that, apart from case-diary entries, the Investigating Officer could not demonstrate effective efforts to secure the petitioner’s presence before the order was made

1. Whether the Sessions Court had sufficient material to form the required belief that the petitioner had absconded or was concealing himself so that the warrant could not be executed, before issuing a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC

2. Whether the proclamation order should be quashed in the absence of such material

Section 82 CrPC permits a court to issue a proclamation only against a person for whom a warrant has been issued and where the court has reason to believe that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be executed

The court relied on *Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana*, 2025 AIJEL-SC 74497, for the purpose of Section 82 and the need for a proper basis to invoke it; it also referred to *State v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar*, (2000) 10 SCC 438, on the requirement of a warrant before Section 82 may be invoked

The court further stated that a proclamation requires material supporting deliberate avoidance of the process, and that mere non-availability at an address or failure to locate the accused is insufficient

The court found that the record contained no material, beyond case-diary entries, demonstrating effective steps to execute the warrant or showing that the petitioner was absconding or deliberately concealing himself. The State’s submission confirmed that the Investigating Officer could not establish such efforts.

Accordingly, the court could not discern a sufficient basis for the Sessions Court’s satisfaction under Section 82 CrPC, and concluded that the proclamation had been issued without the necessary statutory foundation

It directed the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court on the date fixed and provide an undertaking to attend each hearing as directed. The Trial Court was directed to release him on a bond of ₹25,000, subject to such terms and conditions as it may impose

Rule was made absolute.