P&H HC Sets Aside Man’s Proclaimed-Person Order, Citing No Proof He Was Hiding And No Public Reading Of Proclamation

In brief

The question

Whether the Trial Court had sufficient material to conclude that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest, and whether it made adequate efforts to secure his presence before issuing a proclamation.

The court held

The Court accepted the petition and set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 30 September 2025 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, holding that the Section 82 CrPC proceedings were procedurally defective.

It also directed

Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner invoked Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, to challenge the order declaring him a proclaimed person in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

p. 1

After two unsuccessful attempts to execute arrest warrants, the Trial Court initiated proclamation proceedings under Section 82 CrPC. The executing official reported that the petitioner’s house was locked, and that copies of the proclamation had been affixed at the house, a local dharamshala and the Court notice board; the petitioner was subsequently declared a proclaimed person.

pp. 1–3

The petitioner challenged that order on the grounds that the statutory procedure had not been properly followed.

pp. 1, 3–4

02Issues

i.Whether the Trial Court had sufficient material to conclude that the petitioner was absconding or concealing himself to evade arrest, and whether it made adequate efforts to secure his presence before issuing a proclamation.

p. 3

ii.Whether the proclamation complied with Section 82 CrPC when it was not publicly read at a conspicuous place in the town or village where the petitioner ordinarily resided.

pp. 3–4

03Law Applied

Section 82 CrPC requires the Court to have reason to believe, based on available evidence and material, that a person has absconded or is concealing himself to avoid execution of an arrest warrant; the Court must consider prior efforts to secure the person’s presence and record specific satisfaction [*Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana*, CRM-M-41656-2023, decided 23 August 2023].

p. 3

The proclamation procedure also requires public reading at a conspicuous place in the town or village where the person ordinarily resides; omission of that step renders the proclamation and subsequent proceedings a nullity [*Rahul Dureja v. State of Punjab*, 2022(1) Law Herald 219; see also *Harvinder Singh v. State of Haryana*, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 493; *Mahender Kumar v. HDFC Ltd.*, 2024(1) Law Herald 859; *Ramandeep Singh Sangha v. State of Punjab*, 2024(1) Law Herald 291; *Sukhjinder Singh v. State of Punjab*, 2024(2) RCR (Criminal) 5].

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 406 Section 420

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 316 Section 318

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 82

04Reasoning

The Court found that the police report showed only that the petitioner was not found at his residence and his whereabouts were unknown; the record did not provide cogent material supporting the Trial Court’s conclusion that he was intentionally absconding or concealing himself.

p. 3

The Court also considered it significant that warrants had been issued on only two dates and held that the prosecution should have been directed to provide a fresh address rather than proceeding directly to declare the petitioner proclaimed.

p. 3

Further, the executing official’s statement described affixing copies of the proclamation but did not establish that it had been publicly read at a conspicuous place in the relevant town or village, as required by Section 82 CrPC. The Court therefore held that the statutory procedure had not been followed.

pp. 3–4