CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 1 of 15

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 29.01.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 04.04.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 04.04.2026

+ CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 & CRL.M.A. 730/2024

MOHD AMAN RANA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate

versus

THE STATE .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,

APP for the State with Ms.

Amisha Dahiya, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the

order dated 12.10.2023 [hereafter „impugned order‟], passed in by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge (SC-POCSO), North East,

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Sessions Court‟], in SC No.

275/2023, arising out of FIR No. 462/2023, registered at Police

Station New UsmanPur, Delhi, for commission of offences

punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

[hereafter „IPC‟] and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter „POCSO Act‟], vide which the

CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 2 of 15

petitioner herein had been declared a „proclaimed offender‟ under

Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter

„Cr.P.C.‟].

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 13.06.2023, at

about 8:30 PM, the complainant had sent her 8-year-old daughter,

„A‟, to a nearby shop to buy salt. Shortly thereafter, the child returned

crying and informed her family members that while she was on her

way to the shop, co-accused Roshan, who lives nearby, had called her

inside her house. It is alleged that when Roshan went to the kitchen,

the present petitioner pulled down the child‟s pyjama, touched her

private parts and thereafter made her sit on his lap after removing his

pants. When the child started crying, Roshan allegedly slapped her.

The victim had later reported the incident to her, and subsequently,

the present FIR came to be registered.

3. On 20.06.2023, the petitioner‟s application seeking

anticipatory bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Court.

Thereafter, on an application moved by the Investigating Officer

(I.O.), Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against the

petitioner vide order dated 08.08.2023, returnable on 18.08.2023. On

18.08.2023, the learned Sessions Court issued process against the

petitioner under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., returnable on 26.09.2023.

4. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a second anticipatory bail

application before the learned Sessions Court on 28.08.2023. On

12.10.2023, after recording the statement of the concerned process

CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 3 of 15

server, the learned Sessions Court declared the petitioner a

proclaimed offender by way of the impugned order. The petitioner

thereafter moved an application seeking cancellation of the process

issued under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. However, both the second

anticipatory bail application as well as the application seeking

cancellation of the process issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were

dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2023.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2023 declaring him a

proclaimed offender, the petitioner initially filed W.P. (Crl.) No.

3791/2023 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed as

withdrawn on 21.12.2023, with liberty granted to the petitioner to

avail the appropriate remedy by filing a revision petition against the

impugned order. Pursuant thereto, the present petition has been filed.

6. The operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court

on the first date of hearing, i.e., 09.01.2024. However, upon dismissal

of the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner before this

Court on 11.09.2024, the interim order passed in the present petition

was also withdrawn vide order dated 11.09.2024.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the

learned Sessions Court erred in passing the impugned order declaring

the petitioner a proclaimed offender. It is argued that the order is

contrary to the mandate of Section 82(4) of Cr.P.C., as the petitioner

had not been charged with any of the offences specified therein and,

therefore, could not have been declared a proclaimed offender within

CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 4 of 15

the meaning of the provision. It is further submitted that the learned

Sessions Court wrongly concluded that the petitioner was absconding

and deliberately avoiding his appearance before the Court. The

learned counsel argues that the petitioner was in fact pursuing legal

remedies available to him by filing anticipatory bail applications, and

merely seeking such protection cannot be construed as evasion of the

process of law. It is also submitted that the application filed by the

petitioner seeking cancellation of the proclamation was decided along

with his second anticipatory bail application vide order dated

07.11.2023. The learned counsel contends that the learned Sessions

Court failed to properly consider the chronology of events. While

process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was issued on 18.08.2023 and

the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender on 12.10.2023, the

petitioner had already filed his second anticipatory bail application on

28.08.2023, which remained pending on the date of the passing of

impugned order. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner was bona

fide pursuing remedies available to him under law and cannot be said

to have absconded or evaded the judicial process. Accordingly, it is

prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

8. Conversely, the learned APP appearing for the State opposes

the present petition and argues that the allegations against the

petitioner are serious in nature. It is stated that after the petitioner‟s

first anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the learned

Sessions Court, several raids were conducted by the police at the

address provided by him; however, he could not be found there and

CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 5 of 15

no information regarding his whereabouts was available. It is further

submitted that in view of the petitioner‟s non-availability, NBWs

were issued against him vide order dated 08.08.2023. Despite further

efforts by the police, the petitioner could not be traced, following

which proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were initiated on

18.08.2023. The learned APP argues that the proclamation under

Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was duly executed by affixation and public

announcement directing the petitioner to appear before the learned

Sessions Court on 26.09.2023. However, the petitioner failed to

appear, and consequently, after recording the statement of the

concerned process server, the learned Sessions Court declared him a

proclaimed offender vide order dated 12.10.2023. It is therefore

prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

9. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the

petitioner as well as the State, and has perused the material available

on record.

10. In the present petition, the petitioner has raised two-fold

contentions. Firstly, it is submitted that at the time when the

petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender, his application for

anticipatory bail was pending before the learned Sessions Court and,

therefore, it cannot be inferred that he was deliberately evading the

process of law. Secondly, it is contended that in view of Section 82(4)

of Cr.P.C., the petitioner could not have been declared a „proclaimed

offender‟, as the offences alleged against him do not fall within the

categories of offences specified under the said provision.

CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 6 of 15

11. In the present case, this Court notes that the FIR was registered

against the petitioner on 14.06.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner filed

an application seeking anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by the

learned Sessions Court on 20.06.2023. As reflected in the Status

Report, several raids were thereafter conducted by the police on

03.07.2023, 10.07.2023, 22.07.2023, 28.07.2023, 07.08.2023,

16.08.2023 and 17.08.2023. However, despite such efforts, the

petitioner could not be located either at the address available with the

police or at any other known place. The Status Report further records

that the petitioner‟s wife expressed her inability to inform the police

about his whereabouts.

12. In these circumstances, NBWs were issued against the

petitioner by the learned Sessions Court on 08.08.2023.

Subsequently, proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were initiated

against him on 18.08.2023. The statement of the concerned process

server was thereafter recorded and the petitioner was ultimately

declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 12.10.2023. It is also

an admitted position that the petitioner had filed a second anticipatory

bail application before the learned Sessions Court on 28.08.2023, by

which time the process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. had already been

issued against him.

13. It is pertinent to note that the proclamation issued under

Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was returnable on 26.09.2023, thereby granting

the petitioner an opportunity to appear before the learned Sessions

CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 7 of 15

Court prior to the said date. However, instead of appearing before the

Court, the petitioner chose to pursue his second anticipatory bail

application filed on 28.08.2023. Thereafter, vide order dated

07.11.2023, the learned Sessions Court rejected both the second

anticipatory bail application as well as the application seeking setting

aside of the order declaring him a proclaimed offender, and directed

the police to take appropriate steps under Section 174A of IPC.

14. It is the petitioner‟s contention that since he had filed his

second application for anticipatory bail and the same was pending

before the learned Sessions Court, the order declaring him a

proclaimed offender ought not to have been passed, as he was neither

absconding nor evading the process of law. The said contention,

however, is unmerited in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar: (2024) 12

SCC 382, wherein it has been held that filing an application for

anticipatory bail through an advocate does not constitute an

appearance before the Court for a person against whom proceedings

under Sections 82/83 of Cr.P.C. are being initiated. The relevant

observations are as under:

“19. Bearing in mind the aforesaid provisions and position, we

will refer to certain relevant decisions. In Savitaben

Govindbhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, the High Court of

Gujarat observed thus: (SCC OnLine Guj para 9)

“9. Filing of an Anticipatory Bail Application by the

petitioners-accused through their advocate cannot be said

to be an appearance of the petitioners-accused in a

competent Court, so far as proceeding initiated under

Section 82/83 of the Code is concerned; otherwise each

CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 8 of 15

absconding accused would try to create shelter by filing an

Anticipatory Bail Application to avoid obligation to appear

before the court and raises the proceeding under Section 83

of the Code claiming that he cannot be termed as an

absconder in the eye of law. Physical appearance before the

Court is most important, if relevant scheme of Sections 82

and 83, is read closely.”

(emphasis supplied)

24. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the Gujarat

High Court that filing of an anticipatory bail through an

advocate would not and could not be treated as appearance

before a court by a person against whom such proceedings, as

mentioned above are instituted.

29. ……Pending the application for anticipatory bail, in the

absence of an interim protection, if a police officer can arrest

the accused concerned how can it be contented that the court

which issued summons on account of non-obedience to comply

with its order for appearance and then issuing warrant of arrest

cannot proceed further in terms of the provisions under Section

82, Cr.PC, merely because of the pendency of an application

for anticipatory bail. If the said position is accepted the same

would be adopted as a ruse to escape from the impact and

consequences of issuance of warrant for arrest and also from

the issuance of proclamation under Section 82, Cr.PC, by filing

successive applications for anticipatory bail. In such

circumstances, and in the absence of any statutory prohibition

and further, taking note of the position of law which enables a

police officer to arrest the applicant for anticipatory bail if

pending an application for anticipatory bail the matter is

adjourned but no interim order was passed. We have no

hesitation to answer the question posed for consideration in the

negative. In other words, it is made clear that in the absence of

any interim order, pendency of an application for anticipatory

bail shall not bar the Trial Court in issuing/proceeding with

steps for proclamation and in taking steps under Section 83,

Cr.PC, in accordance with law.”

15. Thus, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the

mere filing of an anticipatory bail application cannot operate as a bar

to the initiation or continuation of proceedings under Section 82 of

CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 9 of 15

Cr.P.C. If such a proposition was to be accepted, it would enable

accused persons, against whom NBWs have already been issued and

proceedings under Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. have been initiated, to

repeatedly file successive anticipatory bail applications only to delay

or evade arrest, and thereafter contend that the proclamation

proceedings are invalid. Permitting such a course would defeat the

very purpose of proclamation proceedings and allow the process of

law to be misused. Accordingly, the mere filing or pendency of an

anticipatory bail application cannot be treated as a valid ground to

restrain the learned Sessions Court from proceeding in accordance

with law under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.

16. Thus, on this ground, no relief is made out in favour of the

petitioner.

17. The second contention raised by the petitioner is that he has

been chargesheeted for offences punishable under Section 376 of the

IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and that the offences alleged

against him do not fall within the categories of offences specified

under Section 82(4) of Cr.P.C. On this basis, it is argued that the

petitioner could not have been declared a proclaimed offender.

18. Before examining this contention, it would be apposite to refer

to the legal position governing the initiation of proceedings under

Section 82 of Cr.P.C. Section 82 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:

“82. Proclamation for person absconding. —

(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking

evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has

CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 10 of 15

been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that

such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a

written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified

place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the

date of publishing such proclamation.

(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows—

(i) a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of

the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;

b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house

or home-stead in which such person ordinarily resides or to

some conspicuous place of such town or village;

c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part

of the Court house;

(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the

proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper

circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily

resides.

(3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the

proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly

published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause

(i) of Sub-Section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the

requirements of this section have been complied with, and that

the proclamation was published on such day.

(4) Where a proclamation published under Sub-Section (1) is in

respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under

section 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397,

398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860) and such person fails to appear at the

specified place and time required by the proclamation, the

Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce

him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that

effect.

(5) The provisions of Sub-Sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a

declaration made by the Court under Sub-Section (4) as they

apply to the proclamation published under Sub-Section (1).”

19. A plain reading of the above provision shows that Section 82

of Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to issue a proclamation against a

CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 11 of 15

person who is absconding or concealing himself so that a warrant

issued against him cannot be executed. The use of terms ‘reason to

believe’ in the sub-section (1) of the Section 82 Cr.P.C, suggests that

the concerned Magistrate must be subjectively satisfied that the

person concerned has absconded or has concealed himself. The

provision also prescribes the manner in which such proclamation is to

be published. Sub-section (4) further provides that in cases where the

accused is charged with certain specified serious offences under the

IPC, and fails to appear despite the proclamation, the Court may

declare such person a “proclaimed offender” after making such

inquiry as it deems fit.

20. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sanjay Bhandari v.

State (NCT of Delhi): 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10203 observed that

where a proclamation has been issued against a person accused of an

offence other than those specifically enumerated under Section 82(4)

of Cr.P.C., such a person would be treated as a „proclaimed person‟

and not as a „proclaimed offender‟. The relevant portion of the

decision is extracted hereunder:

“9. Section 82(1) empowers a court to publish a written

proclamation against a person, requiring him to appear at a

specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days

from the date of publishing such proclamation. This

proclamation is issued if the court has reason to believe that a

person against whom a warrant has been issued by it, has

absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot

be executed. Further, it may be noticed that proclamation can

be issued not only against a person, against whom a warrant

has been issued and who has absconded but also against a

person who is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot

CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 12 of 15

be executed.

10. Section 82(2) stipulates the manner and procedure of such

proclamation. Section 83(3) stipulates that a statement in

writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that

the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the

manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be

conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have

been complied with, and that the proclamation was published

on such day.

11. Section 82(4) and 82(5) were inserted by the 2005

amendment of the Code w.e.f. 23.06.2006. Section 82(4)

stipulates that a person, in respect of whom a proclamation has

been published under section 82(1), if he fails to appear at the

specified place and time required by the proclamation and if he

is accused of offences mentioned in Section 82(4), the court

may pronounce him as a proclaimed offender, after making

such inquiry as it things fit. Section 82(5) stipulates that the

provisions of Section 82(2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration

made by the court under section 82(4) as they apply to a

proclamation made under 82(1).

12. Other than section 82(4), Section 82 does not stipulate the

consequences of non-compliance of the proclamation issued

under it. 82(4) stipulates that where the proclaimed person fails

to appear at the specified place and time, the court may

pronounce him as a proclaimed offender. This pronouncement

as a proclaimed offender can only be issued if he is accused of

the offences stipulated in 82(4) and that also, only after the

court has made such inquiry as it deems fit. There is no

provision, other than section 82(4) in the Cr. P.C., under which

the court can pronounce a person as a proclaimed offender.

***

26. Section 174 makes it an offences if a person being legally

bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and

time in obedience to a summons, notice, order or proclamation

proceeding from any public servant, intentionally omits to

attend at that place or time, or departs from the place where he

is bound to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him

to depart. Section 174 applies to all persons and public servants

and is in respect of summons, notice, order or proclamation

proceeding. Section 174 is not restricted only to accused but

inter alia encompasses in its scope, witnesses, parties to civil

and criminal proceedings, noticees to whom notice may have

CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 13 of 15

been issued by public authorities.

27. On the other had section 174A makes it an offence if a

person, required by a proclamation published under sub-section

(1) of section 82, to appear, fails to appear. It further stipulates

that if such a person fails to appear he would be punishable

with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years

or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been

made under section 82(4) against such a person, pronouncing

him as a proclaimed offender, then he shall be punished with

imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and

shall also be liable to fine.

28. Under section 82(1) Cr. P.C. a proclamation can be issued

only against a person against whom a warrant has been issued

and has absconded or is concealing himself so that such

warrant cannot be executed. Clearly, the scope and operation of

sections 174 and 174A are different. However, there may be an

overlap in their operation but largely they operate in different

spheres. Persons covered by section 174A second part would

be a sub set of persons covered by section 174A first part who

in turn would be subset of persons covered by section 174 IPC.

29. Further it may be seen that sections 83, 84 and 85 Cr. P.C.,

which provide for attachment of property of person

absconding, claims & objections thereto and release, sale and

restoration of attached properties of persons qua whom a

declaration under section 82 has been issued, uses the

expression „Proclaimed Person‟.

30. The provisions of Section 82 to 84 become applicable on

the issuance of the proclamation and are not dependent on the

declaration under section 82(4).

31. I am thus of the view that a person who is accused of

offences other than the ones enumerated in section 82(4) and

qua whom a proclamation has been published under section

82(1) would be a „Proclaimed person‟ and not a deemed

„Proclaimed Offender‟.

32. As noticed above, there is no provision other than section

82(4) for pronouncing such a person as a proclaimed offender

and 82(4) applies only in respect of persons accused of sections

of IPC enumerated therein.”

21. The aforesaid judgment was followed by another Co-ordinate

CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 14 of 15

Bench of this Court in Avinash Singh v. State: 2026:DHC:35,

wherein it was held as under:

“28. It has been rightly contended by the Petitioner that the

offence under NDPS Act, does not feature in the category of

the offences defined under Section 82(4) and therefore, he

could not have been declared as a Proclaimed Offender but a

Proclaimed Person, as has also held in the case of Sanjay

Bhandari (supra). It is, therefore, held that though the

procedure to be followed for a Proclamation to be issued is the

same, but it is only for the offences specified in Section 82(4)

that a person can be declared as a Proclaimed Offender and all

other persons are to be considered as Proclaimed Person.

29. The Impugned Order dated 07.03.2022 of learned ASJ,

therefore, is erroneous to the extent of declaring the Petitioner

as a Proclaimed Offender. He be considered as a Proclaimed

Person.”

22. Section 82(4) of Cr.P.C. specifically enumerates certain

offences under the IPC in respect of which an absconding person may

be declared a proclaimed offender. Admittedly, Section 376 of IPC or

Section 6 of the POCSO Act do not find mention among the offences

specified under Section 82(4) of Cr.P.C.

23. In light of the settled legal position, and the decision in Sanjay

Bhandari (supra), the impugned order dated 12.10.2023, which

declared the petitioner a „proclaimed offender‟ is set aside/modified

to the extent that the petitioner be declared as a „proclaimed person‟.

24. However, this modification shall not interfere with any action

taken or liable to be taken against the petitioner, for failure to appear

in pursuance of the proclamation issued under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.,

as a proclaimed person.

CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 15 of 15

25. In above terms, the present petition alongwith pending

application is disposed of.

26. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

APRIL 04, 2026/

TD/rb