• Kuldeep Singh Vs. State

  • Citation: Kuldeep Singh Versus State, Crl. M.C. No.3387/2014, Judgment dated- 25th August, 2014, Ved Prakash Vaish, J, Delhi High Court [Full PDF Judgment].

    Important Extracts Of The Judgment

    9. At this juncture, it is relevant to reproduce the relevant provision of Section 82 Cr.P.C., which 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 been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may public 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 homestead 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 subsection (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 subsection (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-section (1).”

    10. From a bare perusal of Section 82 of Cr.P.C., it is manifestly clear that once the proclamation is issued against a person who could not be arrested despite issuance of non-bailable warrants, he can cause appearance within thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation and if such appearance is cause, process under Section 82 or 83 of Cr.P.C. would come to an end.

    11. I have carefully considered the material on record and I find that the petitioner was fully aware of the proceedings pending before the trial Court regarding issuance of the proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner as he could not be arrested despite issuance of non-bailable warrants. The petitioner moved an application for anticipatory bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi which was dismissed vide order dated 24.03.2014. The petitioner also received a notice dated 29.03.2014 sent by the Investigating Officer but the petitioner did not join the investigation. It appears that the petitioner tried to avoid the process of the Court. The petitioner also moved an application for anticipatory bail before this Court bearing Bail Application No.849/2014, which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2014.

    12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no ground for quashing the proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.

Live2Support.com
All original content on these pages is fingerprinted and certified by Digiprove