Facts
The petitioner, Juhi Kureshi, was an accused in Complaint Case No. 3827 of 2017.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3Following the issuance of a non-bailable warrant on July 1, 2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi, issued a proclamation against the petitioner on January 20, 2026, under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 84 of the BNSS, 2023)
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3While the petitioner initially challenged both the warrant and the proclamation, the challenge to the warrant was withdrawn during the hearing
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2The petitioner contended that the proclamation was issued without recording the mandatory satisfaction that she was absconding or concealing herself and without specifying the time and place for her appearance
Source reference: p. 2, para. 4Issues
1. Whether the order dated January 20, 2026, issuing a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 84 BNSS), is legally sustainable if it fails to fix a specific time and place for the accused’s appearance and lacks a recorded subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate regarding the accused's abscondence?
Source reference: p. 2-3, para. 4, 6Law Applied
The Court applied Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which corresponds to Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3The core legal principle established is that before issuing a proclamation, the Court must strictly fulfill two mandatory requirements: first, it must record a formal satisfaction that the accused is absconding or concealing themselves to evade arrest; and second, the order must explicitly mention the specific time and place for the petitioner’s appearance
Source reference: p. 3-4, para. 6Reasoning
The High Court observed that the power to issue a proclamation is a restrictive measure that must be exercised in strict compliance with the law.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6Upon reviewing the record, the Court found that the Judicial Magistrate failed to record any satisfaction that the petitioner was intentionally evading arrest or concealing herself, which is a sine qua non for such an order
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6Furthermore, the impugned order dated January 20, 2026, was found to be procedurally defective as it failed to specify the "time and place" for the petitioner's appearance, which is a mandatory statutory requirement
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6The Court reasoned that the continuation of such a procedurally flawed order would constitute an abuse of the process of law
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6Holding
The Court held that the order issuing the proclamation was unsustainable due to the failure to comply with mandatory legal requirements
Consequently, the High Court allowed the Cr.M.P., quashing and setting aside the order dated January 20, 2026, passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Ranchi, solely as it pertained to the petitioner
Source reference: p. 4-5, para. 6-7The Magistrate was granted liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law
Source reference: p. 5, para. 8Original Court PDF
JUHI KURESHIvsSTATE OF JHARKHAND
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in