Gujarat HC sets safeguards for declaring accused absconders after a false police report led to a proclamation against an accused

The petitioner was an accused in a case under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B IPC and Section 3 of the GPID Act.

After the case was transferred from Rajkot to Veraval, notices and warrants were reportedly returned unserved.

The Veraval Court issued a non-bailable warrant and, on 2 July 2025, a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC, also directing evidence to be recorded under Section 299 CrPC in the petitioner’s absence.

The High Court found that the proclamation rested on a police report based on a statement attributed to a person whose address and identity could not be verified; the Una Police Inspector later reported that no such person or apartment existed at the stated location.

The Head Constable who prepared the report had been suspended for allegedly preparing a forged report.

Whether the material before the trial court justified issuing a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC on the basis that the petitioner had absconded or was concealing himself to avoid execution of the warrant.

Whether the direction to record evidence under Section 299 CrPC in the petitioner’s absence was sustainable when the requisite basis of absconding had not been established.

Section 82 CrPC permits a court to issue a proclamation where it has reason to believe that a person against whom a warrant has issued has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be executed; the statutory requirements for publication must also be followed.

For a proclamation, the court must be satisfied on the available material that the person is avoiding process despite knowledge of the proceedings; mere inability to locate the person or non-availability at an address is insufficient.

Under Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1, warrants—particularly non-bailable warrants—require careful scrutiny and application of mind, having regard to their effect on personal liberty.

The court further treated proof that the accused had absconded as necessary to support proceedings under Section 299 CrPC in the circumstances of this case.

The trial court’s conclusion that the petitioner was evading service depended on a police report founded on an unverifiable statement.

The High Court’s inquiry undermined the report’s reliability: the purported witness could not be located, the stated apartment did not exist, and the statement contained no contact number or specific residential details.

The record also did not establish service of the notice or bailable warrant, and the report concerning execution of the non-bailable warrant had not been filed before the proclamation was issued.

In these circumstances, the material did not establish deliberate concealment or evasion, and could not support the proclamation or the related direction under Section 299 CrPC.

It directed the petitioner to appear before the trial court on the next date, after which evidence was to be recorded in his presence.

The Superintendent of Police, Gir Somnath, was directed to conclude the departmental inquiry, and the Veraval Court was directed to initiate criminal prosecution against the Head Constable, following the procedure prescribed by law.

The Court also issued guidelines for courts considering proclamation proceedings and directed the Registry to circulate the judgment to all District Courts in Gujarat.