Mohd Aman Rana vs The State on 4 April, 2026

April 5, 2026

Delhi High Court

Mohd Aman Rana vs The State on 4 April, 2026

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

SPONSORED

CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 1 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
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 2 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
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 3 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
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 4 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
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 5 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19

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 6 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
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 7 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
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 8 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
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 9 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
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 10 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
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 11 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
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 12 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
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 13 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19
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 14 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19

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

CRL.REV.P. 37/2024 Page 15 of 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.04.2026
15:09:19

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Mohd Aman Rana vs The State on 4 April, 2026

Delhi High Court