Proclamation for person absconding
Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with proclamation for person absconding. 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 publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(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 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 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.
Section 82, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 84 Proclamation for person absconding Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-7.pdf 2012-08-31. Crl A 1331/2012. Sathasivam. DATE-CHECK flagged 2011-12-05 HC / 2010-01-19 marriage / 2011-09-01 suicide dates (false positive); body is the named reportable. A proclaimed offender / absconder under CrPC 82 is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Map CrPC 82 + BNSS 84. Do not remap CrPC 438 (already filled).
On this section: A proclaimed offender or absconder under s.82 is not entitled to anticipatory bail (Lavesh).
-
Somesh Chaurasia vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person convicted of a serious offence under Section 302 IPC and released on bail during suspension of sentence is subsequently implicated in another serious offence (particularly murder) committed during the period of bail, the bail must be cancelled as the accused has misused the liberty granted to him. The High Court must apply stringent legal principles governing post-conviction bail and cannot dispose of bail cancellation applications by merely directing further investigation without considering the gravity of allegations, criminal antecedents, and material facts indicating abuse of process. The cancellation of bail is warranted when there is evidence of misuse of liberty by engaging in similar criminal activity, and the court must ensure that the rule of law is preserved and that no person, regardless of political connections, is shielded from the administration of criminal justice.
On this section: Proclamation against accused - the Court noted that a proclamation with Rs 10,000 award was issued against the second respondent but he continued to evade arrest
-
Pankaj Jain vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The word 'may' in Section 88 Cr.P.C. confers discretionary power on the court and does not create a mandatory obligation or a corresponding right in any person appearing before the court. The discretion is for the court to exercise judicially based on the nature of the case, seriousness of charges, and status of the person (whether a free agent or already under warrant/arrest). Section 88 applies only to persons who are free agents - meaning they have not been arrested, are not under custody, and a non-bailable warrant has not been issued against them. When a non-bailable warrant has been issued and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against an accused, that person ceases to be a free agent and cannot claim protection under Section 88. The discretion under Section 88 is not coupled with any duty toward the appearing person; rather, it is coupled with the duty to ensure appearance of the person in court. Therefore, an accused person's non-arrest during investigation does not automatically entitle them to release on bond merely by appearing in court; they must follow the prescribed bail procedures applicable to their specific category of offence.
On this section: Non-bailable warrant process - proceedings initiated against appellant preventing application of Section 88
-
Subhash vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once an absconding accused appears before the court and faces trial, the purpose of property attachment under Section 82 CrPC is achieved and the attached property must be released, regardless of whether the application for release is technically time-barred under Section 85(3) CrPC, particularly when the accused was genuinely unaware of the proceedings due to being out of the country. The purpose of Section 82 CrPC is limited to securing the attendance of the accused, not to punish him or permanently deprive him of property. Once this purpose is achieved through the accused's appearance and trial, substantive justice requires that the property be restored to the accused, even if he has been acquitted.
On this section: Attachment of property of absconding accused to secure attendance. Court held that this provision is meant only to secure presence of accused, not as punishment. Once the purpose is achieved through appearance and trial, attachment must be withdrawn.
-
Kapil Kumar vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person who has been declared as a Proclaimed Offender under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., regardless of whether the offences technically fall within the specific categories enumerated in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. The procedure for issuing Non-Bailable Warrants and initiating proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. in police cases does not require prior issuance of summons and bailable warrants, and the Magistrate has inherent power under Section 73 Cr.P.C. to issue warrants for non-bailable offences when the accused is evading arrest. In economic offences of large magnitude affecting the economic fabric of society, the power to grant anticipatory bail must be exercised sparingly.
On this section: Core provision governing proclamation of persons absconding and declaration of proclaimed offenders; Court analyzed subsections (1) and (4) to determine procedural requirements and distinction between proclaimed person and proclaimed offender
-
Laxmeswar Thakur vs The State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An application for cancellation of proceedings under Section 82/83 CrPC cannot be entertained when the factual basis for the application (payment of dues) is contradicted by verified bank records of the recipient.
On this section: Proclamation for person absconding.
-
Lalit Yadav vs State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has already been enlarged on bail in all related cases and the conditions under Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 are satisfied, bail should be granted in the main case as well, subject to strict conditions ensuring appearance and compliance with trial proceedings, in accordance with the principle that bail is the rule and committal to jail is the exception.
On this section: Proclamation for appearance; referenced as consequence of bail violation
-
Omveer Singh vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a co-accused person with a similar role in the crime has already been granted bail by the court, the principle of bail parity requires that another accused with similar involvement should also be considered for bail on similar grounds, provided other relevant factors such as period of detention and likelihood of misuse are also favorable. Bail can be granted at the prima facie stage without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure court attendance and prevent abuse of bail liberty.
On this section: Proclamation for appearance - consequence of bail misuse
-
Kamlesh Kumar Lodhi vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When co-accused persons with identical roles in a narcotic drug trafficking case have been granted bail by the same court, and the applicant has no direct recovery of drugs, no criminal history, and has been in pre-trial detention for over seven months, bail should be granted applying the principle of parity, subject to stringent conditions ensuring the applicant's presence before court, cooperation in trial, and non-tampering with evidence. The mere fact that applicant was found inside a vehicle carrying commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, without direct recovery from the applicant, does not create an absolute bar to bail under Section 37 NDPS Act when considered against the totality of circumstances including parity with similarly situated co-accused.
On this section: Proclamation under this section can be issued if applicant misuses liberty of bail; mentioned in bail conditions
-
Sanjeeva Palan vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A trial court, when faced with an application under Section 284 Cr.P.C. for recording evidence through commission or video conferencing, must exercise its discretion by carefully considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, including the age, health, language barriers, safety concerns, and relocation of witnesses, and must weigh whether any prejudice would be caused to the parties if such alternative modes are allowed. The court cannot reject such applications merely on the ground that the trial is pending for a long time or that the witnesses are suspected of being absconders, without considering the legitimate difficulties faced by the witnesses. The interests of justice require that courts balance the need for expeditious trial with the practical difficulties and vulnerabilities of witnesses.
On this section: Relate to coercive process for ensuring presence of witnesses. The court noted that these sections had been invoked against the applicants before the commission application was filed.
-
Chandra Kanta Bartar vs State of Uttarakhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When statutory remedies are available under the Criminal Procedure Code for challenging attachment of property (Sections 84, 85, and 86), a writ petition under Article 226 is not the appropriate remedy, and the petitioner must first exhaust these statutory remedies before approaching the High Court through writ jurisdiction.
On this section: Deals with proclamation for person absconding; cited to establish the legal framework for attachment of property
-
Sunil Pandey vs State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When witness statements recorded during investigation under Section 180 CrPC establish that the alleged victim's death was accidental rather than resulting from criminal acts alleged by the prosecution, and the trial court has failed to consider such evidence in rejecting a bail application, the appellate court should set aside the bail rejection and grant bail to the appellant, particularly where the appellant has no criminal history, the charge sheet has been submitted, and there is no risk of evidence tampering.
On this section: Proclamation procedure referenced in bail conditions for non-appearance
-
SANJEEV@BITTU vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving proclaimed persons convicted under Section 174-A IPC, the appellate court has discretion to modify the sentence from imprisonment to fine when it finds that imprisonment would not serve any useful purpose and when the larger interest of justice would be better served by imposing a monetary penalty instead, provided the enhanced fine is proportionate to the offence and the appellant's circumstances.
On this section: The appellate court noted that the appellant was not accused of any offence mentioned in this section, establishing his status as a proclaimed person for sentencing purposes.
-
Madanlal Khandelwal vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused person who has been in judicial custody for an extended period (2.5 months in this case), whose investigation has been completed as evidenced by the filing of supplementary charge sheets, who is no longer required for custodial interrogation, who has no criminal antecedents, and who has co-accused persons granted bail by the same court, is entitled to bail despite being charged with serious offences, provided appropriate conditions are imposed to ensure his appearance in trial and prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
On this section: Cited in relation to the proceedings initiated by the trial court instead of deciding the issues raised in the writ petition.
-
Nitin vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Even in cases involving serious offences under the Excise Act and IPC (Sections 420, 482), bail may be granted when the trial status is unclear and the accused has already undergone substantial pre-trial detention, provided stringent conditions are imposed to ensure presence during trial and prevent abuse of bail liberty.
On this section: Proclamation procedure cited as mechanism to secure presence of accused if bail is misused
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 82
What have the courts held on Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (31 Aug 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: A proclaimed offender or absconder under s.82 is not entitled to anticipatory bail (Lavesh). Another 14 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 82, section 82 CRPC, section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 15 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (31 Aug 2012).
What should I read with Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 84 (Proclamation for person absconding), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 82, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.