Order for proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is unsustainable without recording satisfaction of absconding and specifying appearance details.

The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash two orders passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Palamau in connection with Patan P.S. Case No. 114 of 2022. The first order, dated 03.10.2023, issued a proclamation against the petitioner under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.

The second order, dated 06.03.2024, directed the attachment of the petitioner’s property.

During proceedings, the petitioner withdrew the prayer regarding the attachment order as no property had yet been attached.

The challenge proceeded against the proclamation order on the grounds that the trial court failed to record a finding of absconding and failed to specify a time and place for appearance.

1. Whether the order dated 03.10.2023 issuing a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is legally sustainable if it fails to record the court's satisfaction regarding the accused absconding and fails to specify a time and place for appearance.

The court applied the mandatory requirements of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which dictates that a court must record its subjective satisfaction that the accused is absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest as a sine qua non for issuing a proclamation.

The statute and settled legal principles require the court to specify a definitive time and place for the accused's appearance within the order itself.

Jurisdiction for the petition was invoked under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The High Court observed that the power to issue a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality but requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards.

Upon reviewing the record, the Court found that the Special Judge, POCSO Act, failed to record any satisfaction that the petitioner was intentionally absconding or concealing himself to evade the process of law.

Additionally, the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 was found to be procedurally defective because it omitted the mandatory requirement of fixing a specific time and place for the petitioner to appear.

The Court reasoned that issuing such a proclamation without complying with these mandatory statutory requirements constitutes an illegality and an abuse of the process of law.

The Court quashed and set aside the proclamation order dated 03.10.2023 qua the petitioner.

The prayer to quash the attachment order dated 06.03.2024 was rejected as not pressed.

The learned Special Judge was granted liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law.