Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mukesh Paliwal vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:28866]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4617/2026
Mukesh Paliwal S/o Mangilal Paliwal, Aged About 51 Years,
Resident Of Ekta Road, Kandhiwali West, Mumbai, Maharastra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Vinayak Enterprises, Through Pradeepan Singh Son Of
Vijay Singh Shaktavat Resident Of Madara, Tehsil
Relmgra, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandan Singh for Mr. Shyam
Paliwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
02/07/2026
By way of filing the present misc. petition under Section 528
BNSS, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 09.9.2025
passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases),
District Rajsamand in Criminal Case No.548/2021, whereby the
learned trial Court declared the petitioner an absconder and has
issued arrest warrants against the petitioner.
This Court has considered the arguments raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner and has perused the order dated
09.9.2025.
Counsel submits that the petitioner had gone to Bombay to
earn his livelihood and, therefore, was not residing at the address
available on record of Rajsamand. Consequently, the notices as
(Uploaded on 04/07/2026 at 01:33:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 08:42:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:28866] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-4617/2026]
well as the bailable warrants issued by the learned trial Court
could not be served upon him and, as a result, he could not
appear before the Court.
He further submits that the petitioner was never evading the
process of law and his absence was solely on account of his being
away from his native place for earning his livelihood. It is not the
case that he was deliberately avoiding service of notices or
warrants.
Counsel further submits that despite the notices and bailable
warrants having remained unserved, the learned trial Court
proceeded to issue arrest warrants and declared the petitioner an
absconder without proper application of mind. He submits that
there was no material before the learned trial Court to arrive at a
satisfaction that the petitioner had absconded or was intentionally
evading the process of law.
This Court, upon considering the submissions made, finds
sufficient reason for the non-appearance of the petitioner.
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while dealing with the
issue of initiation of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.,
vide its order dated 18.09.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No.6290/2024 (Visha Bhai Vs. State of Rajasthan),
observed as under:-
“7. Qua issuance of process under Sections 82 & 83 of Cr.P.C.
against the petitioner herein, reference may be had to a Punjab
and Haryana High Court judgment rendered in case of Pradeep
Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.3, decided on
23.08.2023. Relevant thereof is extracted hereinbelow:
(Uploaded on 04/07/2026 at 01:33:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 08:42:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:28866] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-4617/2026]“13.1 The declaration of an individual as a proclaimed person or
offender, as contemplated under Section 82 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as ‘the Code’), carries
with it the consequential implication of attachment and sale of his
property as delineated in Sections 83, 84, and 85 of the Code.
Furthermore, such a declaration triggers the criminal liability of
the individual under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, with
a potential sentence of up to seven years of imprisonment,
coupled with a monetary penalty. This, in turn, has profound and
far-reaching ramifications, significantly affecting the fundamental
rights to life, liberty and property of the concerned individual.
Hence, it becomes imperative that the Courts meticulously adhere
to the statutory requirements in letter and spirit both, duly
reflecting their compliance on the record prior to pronouncing an
individual as a proclaimed person or offender and invoking
criminal liability under the aforementioned section.
13.2 Section 82(1) of the Code mandates that a proclamation
shall require the concerned individual to appear at a specified
place and time, with no less than thirty days’ notice from the date
of proclamation publication. Sub-Section (2) provides
comprehensive guidance on the publication of proclamations,
while sub-Section (3) firmly establishes that a written statement
by the issuing Court shall be conclusive evidence of compliance
with the requirements of this Section. Additionally, Section 83(1)
empowers the Court, to order the attachment of any property,
whether movable or immovable, belonging to the proclaimed
individual, for reasons recorded in writing.
13.3 In cases where an accused person fails to appear even after
publication of the proclamation under Section 82(1) of the Code,
the Court can initiate action as per procedure outlined in Sections
83, 84, and 85 of the Code for the attachment and sale of their
property. Furthermore, the Court may proceed with the
examination of witnesses in the individual’s absence, as stipulated
in Section 299 of the Code.
x-x-x-x-x
19. Before parting with the case, having had the benefit of
judgment in Sunil Tyagi supra, it is considered desirable to frame
guidelines for issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, it’s publication, declaring the
concerned person as ‘proclaimed person’ or ‘proclaimed offender’
and where considered necessary, to invoke criminal proceedings
(Uploaded on 04/07/2026 at 01:33:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 08:42:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:28866] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-4617/2026]
against person for offence under Section 74-A of IPC (Sic 174-A).
Accordingly, the following guidelines are being framed:
Issuance of proclamation :
i. Preceding the issuance of the proclamation under section 82
Cr.P.C., the Court must deliberate upon its previous efforts to
secure the presence of the through other legally permissible
means. These efforts encompass the issuance of summons, the
execution of bailable and/or non-bailable warrants against the
accused. The Court must thoroughly document the results
stemming from these endeavours, accompanied by pertinent facts
and comprehensive details. It is incumbent upon the Court to
satisfactorily ascertain that the individual in question has indeed
absconded or is concealing himself to evade execution of warrant
of arrest.
ii. The phrase “reason to believe,” as articulated in Section 82
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, signifies that the Court must
derive its belief from the available evidence and materials that the
concerned person has absconded or is concealing himself to evade
execution of warrant of arrest.
iii. Furthermore, in the proclamation, it must be set forth as to
where and when the concerned individual must present himself. A
designated location and time must be stipulated. Importantly, the
specified date and time for appearance should not be less than a
thirty-day from the date of publication of the proclamation.
Publication of proclamation-
iv. The publication of a proclamation, as outlined in Section 82(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, mandates adherence to all
three prescribed modes, namely:
(a). The public reading of the proclamation in a conspicuous
location within the town or village where the individual ordinarily
resides.
(b) The affixation of the proclamation at a prominent spot at the
individual’s house or homestead.
(c) The display of the proclamation at a prominent location within
the precincts of the court house.
v. All the aforesaid three modes of publication of a proclamation
have to be adhered to. Failure to follow all or any of them renders
the proclamation invalid in the eyes of the law. This is because the
three sub-clauses (a) to (c) are mutually exclusive.
vi. If the Court so feels, in addition to the aforementioned trio of
methods for securing the accused’s presence, it may, at its
discretion, also direct the publication of a copy of the proclamation
(Uploaded on 04/07/2026 at 01:33:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 08:42:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:28866] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-4617/2026]
in a daily newspaper circulating within the geographical area
where the said individual ordinarily resides.
vii If the Court, in its discretion orders publication of proclamation
in newspaper, it shall also direct that the newspaper agency, upon
the publication of the proclamation in the newspaper, shall
dispatch a copy thereof to the accused’s ad dress, as is the
procedure observed in civil matters, in terms of Order 5 Rule 10 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. In essence, this supplementary
measure ensures that the accused is duly apprised of the legal
proceedings against him. Declaration as “proclaimed person” or
“proclaimed offender:
viii. Prior to the declaration of the concerned individual as a
“proclaimed person” or “proclaimed offender,” the Court shall pass
a speaking order stating relevant facts and record its satisfaction
that the proclamation has been duly and properly published in the
prescribed manner.
ix. Furthermore, it must ensure that a period of not less than
thirty days has expired between the date of publication of the
proclamation and the date indicated in the proclamation for the
individual’s appearance. If the interval between the proclamation’s
publication and the date specified therein for appearance falls
short of thirty days, such a publication of the proclamation cannot
serve as the foundation for designating the individual in question
as a “proclaimed person” or “proclaimed offender.”
In the present case, as well the learned trial Court has issued
the standing arrest warrant and declared the petitioner as an
absconder without recording sufficient reasons. In light of the
observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
order dated 18.09.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.6290/2024 (Visha Bhai Vs. State of Rajasthan) (supra), this
Court is inclined to allow the present criminal misc. petition.
Further the petitioner is ready and willing to participate in
the trial.
(Uploaded on 04/07/2026 at 01:33:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 08:42:00 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:28866] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-4617/2026]Hence, the impugned order dated 09.9.2025 passed by the
learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases), District
Rajsamand, whereby the petitioner has been declared an
absconder is hereby quashed and set aside.
The petitioner shall appear before the learned trial Court on
the next date and shall continue to cooperate in the trial
proceedings till its final disposal. If petitioner does not appear on
the subsequent dates, the learned trial court shall be free to
proceed in accordance with law.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
54-Sanjay/-
(Uploaded on 04/07/2026 at 01:33:01 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/07/2026 at 08:42:00 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
