Section 82 CrPC proclamation requires a prior warrant and recorded satisfaction that the accused is absconding.

FIR No. 187 dated 19.10.2023 was registered against the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar.

After being granted bail, the petitioner had regularly appeared before the trial Court. On 10.06.2025, following his non-appearance, notice was issued; subsequent notices were issued on 01.09.2025, 06.10.2025 and 05.11.2025 after earlier notices were returned unserved.

On 17.12.2025, the trial Court issued a proclamation under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C., requiring the petitioner to appear within 30 days from publication.

A further proclamation was issued on 19.02.2026, and on 10.04.2026 the Duty Magistrate recorded that it had been duly effected.

On 11.06.2026, the trial Court declared the petitioner a proclaimed person on the ground that the statutory period of 30 days had expired and he had not appeared.

The petitioner challenged that order under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that no warrant had been issued against him, the mandatory procedure for publication had not been followed, and the serving constable’s statement had not been recorded.

1. Whether the trial Court could initiate proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. without first issuing a warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

2. Whether the proclamation and consequential declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person were legally sustainable in the absence of a recorded judicial satisfaction that he had absconded or was concealing himself to evade execution of the warrant.

3. Whether the mandatory publication and verification requirements under Section 82(2)–(3) Cr.P.C. had been complied with.

Section 82 Cr.P.C. permits issuance of a proclamation only where a warrant has first been issued and the Court has reason to believe that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be executed.

The proclamation must require appearance on a specified date and place not less than 30 days from its publication.

Publication must be effected conjunctively by publicly reading the proclamation, affixing it at the person’s residence or a conspicuous place in the town or village, and affixing a copy at the Court-house; the serving officer’s statement regarding the date and mode of publication should be recorded, and the Court must make a written statement confirming due publication.

Relying on Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 319, and the authorities cited therein, the Court held that these requirements are mandatory and that non-compliance renders the proclamation and consequential proceedings a nullity.

The trial Court’s order initiating proclamation proceedings merely stated that the petitioner and co-accused had either absconded or were concealing themselves to avoid execution of warrants, without recording a proper judicial satisfaction based on the petitioner’s circumstances.

More importantly, although non-bailable warrants had been issued against the co-accused, the petitioner had only been served with notices; no bailable or non-bailable warrant had first been issued against him.

Thus, the essential precondition for invoking Section 82 Cr.P.C. was absent.

Further, the declaration order dated 11.06.2026 relied only on the expiry of 30 days and the petitioner’s non-appearance, rather than establishing compliance with the mandatory statutory procedure and recording the requisite satisfaction that he was absconding or concealing himself.

The proclamation proceedings were consequently unsustainable.

The petitioner was granted 30 days to surrender before the trial Court and apply for bail, which was directed to be considered expeditiously in accordance with law.

If he failed to appear within that period, the petition would be deemed dismissed, since he had undertaken to surrender and could not use the order merely to avoid the criminal proceedings.