P&H HC Sets Aside Proclaimed-Offender Order Over Warrants Served Through Accused’s Wife, Conditional On Surrender Within 30 Days

The petitioner was facing trial in an FIR alleging offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC, corresponding to Sections 310(4) and 310(5) of the BNS, and had been granted regular bail.

After he failed to appear, the trial court cancelled his bail and issued non-bailable warrants. The warrants were reported as served through his wife.

The trial court then initiated proceedings under Section 82 CrPC and, after recording that the proclamation had been effected more than 30 days before the return date, declared him a proclaimed offender on 11 September 2026.

The petitioner challenged that order, contending that the warrants had not been properly executed and that the proclamation proceedings were unlawful; he also stated that he was willing to surrender but feared being taken into custody.

Section 82 CrPC requires a court, before issuing a proclamation, to have 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 proclamation must allow at least 30 days to appear and must be published in the prescribed manner.

In Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319, the Court summarised the requirements for a valid proclamation, including prior issuance of an arrest warrant, judicial satisfaction that the person is absconding or concealing himself despite reasonable diligence, compliance with the statutory publication methods, and recording the serving officer’s statement.

These requirements are mandatory and must be complied with scrupulously.

The Court also considered the petition under Section 528 BNSS.

The trial court’s record showed that the non-bailable warrants were reported as served through the petitioner’s wife.

The High Court held that this was not proper execution of non-bailable warrants and distinguished such warrants from summons, which may be served through an adult family member.

Because the warrants had not been properly executed, the trial court lacked a proper basis to proceed on the footing that the petitioner was evading the process of the court and to initiate proclamation proceedings.

Although the petitioner had previously failed to appear, the Court considered that proper procedure remained necessary and balanced setting aside the order against the risk that the petitioner might not appear thereafter.

It directed that, if the petitioner surrendered before the trial court within 30 days and applied for bail, the application should be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

If he failed to appear within that period, the petition would be deemed dismissed.