Bombay High Court
KHUSAL BHANUDAS TAPKIRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The proclamation under Section 82 was invalid due to non‑compliance with statutory procedural requirements and is therefore quashed.
Summary
The applicants, accused of a Section 302 IPC offence, had a non‑bailable warrant issued in 2022 and were alleged to be absconding. The Sessions Judge issued a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. on 7 February 2025 but failed to specify a place and time for appearance and did not provide the statutory thirty‑day period or follow the prescribed publication procedure. The applicants challenged the proclamation, arguing procedural non‑compliance and that it was used to prejudice an anticipatory bail application. The High Court examined the requirements of Section 82(1)‑(4) and found that the order omitted mandatory specifications and proper publication, rendering it mechanically and unlawfully issued. Consequently, the Court allowed the revision, quashed the proclamation order, and directed the prosecution to comply with Section 82 if it wishes to declare the applicants proclaimed offenders.
Issues considered
- Whether the proclamation issued under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code is valid when the order does not specify a place and time for appearance and does not grant the statutory thirty‑day period.
- Whether the procedural requirements of Section 82(2) regarding publication of the proclamation were complied with.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82(1), 82(2), 82(3), 82(4)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459, 460
Subjects
- Proclamation
- Section 82 CrPC
- Procedural irregularity
- Absconding accused
- Non‑bailable warrant
- Anticipatory bail
- Declared proclaimed offender
Judgment
901- Revn 213 of 2025 VD-Final (1).doc
Tikam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 213 OF 2025
VAISHALI Khusal Bhanudas Tapkir and Anr. ...Applicants
ANIL Vs.
TIKAM
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Digitally signed _________________________________________________________________
by VAISHALI
ANIL TIKAM
Date:
2026.09.10 Mr. Hrishikesh Ashok Mundargi i.by Harshwardhan Milind Pawar a/w.
15:03:21 +0530
Padmasinh Patil, Advocates for Applicants.
Smt. R.D. Humane, APP for the State.
Mr. Kailash Ramchandra Kadam, Indapur Police Station.
_________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicants and learned APP for
the State.
2. The challenge in this application is to the impugned order dated
7th February, 2025 passed below Exhibit 38 by learned Sessions Judge,
Indapur, Pune, whereby proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C”) is issued against the Applicants.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicants that the
proclamation has been issued against the Applicants without following the
mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. Learned
Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order, which does not mention
about the place or time requiring the Applicants to appear at a specified
Page 1 of 6
901- Revn 213 of 2025 VD-Final (1).doc
Tikam
place and at a specified time in not less than thirty days from the date of
publication of such proclamation, as stipulated under Section 82(1) of the
Cr.P.C.. Learned Sessions Judge has also not followed proper procedure for
publication of the proclamation as provided under section 82(2) of the
Cr.P.C, which is erroneous. It is further submitted that proclamation was
deliberately obtained to frustrate and prejudice the pending Anticipatory
Bail proceeding of the Applicant-Khusal Tapkir, which was subsequently
rejected on the ground that the proclamation was issued. After rejection of
the said anticipatory bail, no steps have thereafter been taken to proceed
under section 82(4) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that learned Sessions
Judge has passed the impugned order in a routine and mechanical manner,
without application of mind and requested to allow the application.
He has relied on Tek Chand vs. State of Punjab and Another1.
4. It is contention of Learned APP that the Applicants are Accused
Nos. 1 and 2 and are facing prosecution for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1908 (for short, “IPC”). Non-bailable
warrant had been issued against them in the year 2022. Despite the
issuance of the said warrant, the Applicants were avoiding the due process
of law and absconding. Hence, an Application under Section 82 of the
Cr.P.C. was filed against them. The Learned APP further submitted that
learned Sessions Judge, after considering the material on record, has
1 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 416
Page 2 of 6
901- Revn 213 of 2025 VD-Final (1).doc
Tikam
rightly issued proclamation and has passed a well-reasoned order, no
interference is required in it and requested to reject the application.
5. I have heard both learned counsel. Perused impugned order.
The record shows that non-bailable warrant was issued against Applicants
in the year 2022 and the Applicants could not be traced during the course
of investigation. Consequently, the warrant issued against them could not
be executed. Section 82 of the Cr.P.C deals with the issuance and
publication of proclamation against a person who is absconding or
concealing himself to avoid execution of warrant. Sections 82 (1) to 82(4)
of the Cr.P.C. read as follows:
"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
publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear
at a specified place and at a specified time not less that
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
Page 3 of 6
901- Revn 213 of 2025 VD-Final (1).doc
Tikam
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.
2
(4) Whereas proclamation 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".
6. These provisions specifically states that if the Court has reason
to believe that any person against whom a warrant has been issued has
absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be
2 Inserted by Act 25 of 2005, S.12 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).
Page 4 of 6
901- Revn 213 of 2025 VD-Final (1).doc
Tikam
executed, the Court may publish a written proclamation requiring such
person to appear at a specified place and at a specified time, not less than
thirty days from the date of publication of such proclamation. Thus, the
Court is required to specify the place and time at which such person is
required to appear and provide him with a period of not less than thirty
days from the date of publication of the proclamation. In the impugned
order, the Learned Sessions Judge has not specified any such place or time
for the Applicants to appear, nor has the Applicants been granted the
statutory period of thirty days to appear before the Court.
7. It appears from the record that the mandatory procedure
prescribed under Section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C. for publication of the
proclamation, including public reading of the proclamation and its
affixation at the conspicuous part of the house or homestead of the
Applicants and at the Court-house, was not duly followed by the learned
Sessions Judge.
8. It appears that the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the
Cr.P.C. has not been duly followed. The provision requires a written
proclamation requiring the person to appear at a specified place and at a
specified time, not less than thirty days from the date of publication of
such proclamation. In the present case, no such place or time has been
specified in the impugned order and the statutory period of thirty days has
Page 5 of 6
901- Revn 213 of 2025 VD-Final (1).doc
Tikam
not been provided. Further, the mandatory procedure prescribed under
Section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C. for publication of the proclamation has also
not been complied with.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order
appears to have been passed in haste and without due compliance with the
procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. The power under
Section 82 cannot be exercised mechanically or in a routine manner. The
impugned order, therefore, suffers from procedural irregularity and non-
application of mind and cannot be sustained in law. In the view of above, I
pass following order:
ORDER
(i) Application is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 7th February, 2025 passed below
Exhibit 38 by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Indapur, Pune in
Sessions Case No. 115/2024 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) If prosecution wishes to declare the Applicants as proclaimed
offenders, the prosecution shall follow the procedure envisaged under
Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.
(iv) Criminal Revision Application is disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
Page 6 of 6
Checking your session…