Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AVINASH SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-3505/2025
A person cannot be declared a Proclaimed Offender under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. for offences not specified therein, including those under the NDPS Act; the proper designation is a Proclaimed Person.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 82(1), (4), 40, 41, 43, 73, 83, 84 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 174A - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 25, 29 - Distinction between Proclaimed Person and Proclaimed Offender - A person can be declared a Proclaimed Offender only for offences specified in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C.; for all other offences, including those under NDPS Act, the proper declaration is as a Proclaimed Person - Strict compliance with Section 82 procedure necessary before any such declaration - Non-intimation of change of address by accused does not vitiate proclamation if executed at last known address. (Paras 20-28)
(B) Section 174A IPC - Punishment for non-appearance in response to proclamation - Enhanced punishment of up to seven years for Proclaimed Offender, while up to three years for Proclaimed Person - Cognizance under Section 174A is maintainable even if declaration as Proclaimed Offender is modified to Proclaimed Person, as the offence is for failure to appear after proclamation under Section 82(1). (Paras 26-29)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner was arrested in an FIR under the NDPS Act for recovery of 280 kg of ganja from a truck owned by him. He was released on interim bail on medical/humanitarian grounds in November 2020. He failed to appear before the trial court; non‑bailable warrants were issued, and his surety brother deposed that he did not know the Petitioner’s whereabouts. A proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was executed at his last known address, and the Petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Offender on 07.03.2022. Subsequently, cognizance was taken under Section 174A IPC on 11.09.2024. The Petitioner challenged both orders.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the offence under the NDPS Act does not fall within the categories specified in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C., and therefore the Petitioner could only be declared a Proclaimed Person, not a Proclaimed Offender. The impugned order of 07.03.2022 was modified accordingly. However, the procedure for issuing the proclamation was validly followed at the last known address; the Petitioner had not intimated his change of address. The order taking cognizance under Section 174A IPC was not vitiated.
Issues: (i) Whether a person accused of an offence under the NDPS Act can be declared a Proclaimed Offender under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C.? (ii) Whether the proclamation and subsequent proceedings were vitiated by non‑compliance with the prescribed procedure?
Ratio Decidendi: Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. creates a clear distinction between a Proclaimed Person and a Proclaimed Offender; the latter can only be declared for offences expressly mentioned in that sub‑section. For all other offences, the person remains a Proclaimed Person. The procedure under Section 82(1) must be strictly complied with, but if executed at the last known address, absence of intimation of change of address does not invalidate the proclamation. The cognizance under Section 174A IPC is separate and not dependent on the classification as Proclaimed Offender. Result : Petition disposed of. Impugned order dated 07.03.2022 modified to declare Petitioner a Proclaimed Person instead of Proclaimed Offender. Order dated 11.09.2024 taking cognizance under Section 174A IPC upheld. Clarified that observations do not affect merits of the trial. Pending applications disposed of.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
CRL.M.A. 15470/2025 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 3505/2025
3. Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.N.S.S.’) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, Avinash Singh for quashing of the Impugned Order dated07.03.2022 whereby the learned Trial Court declared him a Proclaimed Offender and the Order dated 11.09.2024 vide which the learned Trial Court took cognizance for the offence under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) in respect of the FIR No. 345/2019 under Section 20/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, dated 03.12.2019, registered at Police Station Crime Branch.
4. Briefly stated, on 03.12.2019, at around 08:00 am, on the basis of secret information that a truck would be coming between 10:00 am to 11:00 am at Dr. Hedgewar Marg, Near Paper Market, DDA Park for supply of Ganja near Ghazipur, Delhi, a raid was organized. A truck bearing Registration No. UP 70 BT 1055 was found parked on the main road and the person, who was present over the truck, was found trying to uncover the canvas by loosening the ropes. He was identified as Sonelal @ Sonu. After sometime, another person, namely, Raju came to help him to unload the blue colour plastic drum and it was kept on the footpath. In the meanwhile, the raiding team apprehended both the accused and on search, total amount of 280 kg was recovered.
5. The role assigned by the Prosecution to the Petitioner, was that of being the owner of the Truck from which the recovery was affected. The Applicant was arrested on 05.12.2019.
6. The Charge-Sheet was filed in the Court. This Court in the Writ Petition (C) 2/2020, titled as Court on its Motion vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide Order dated 25.03.2020 gave directions pursuant to which the Petitioner was released on Interim Bail on medical/humanitarian grounds on 04.11.2020.
7. The Petitioner stated that at the time he was granted Interim Bail, he was residing and a resident of 166, Nawabpur, Urf Khanpr, PS Mau Aima, District Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. Due to some differences with the family, the wife and the children, shifted to a new address i.e. Village Sewaith Crossing, Shiv Valley Colony, Soraon, Prayagraj, which was in the name of the Petitioner’s wife i.e. Ms. Sonam Singh. The Petitioner after getting the released on Interim Bail also started residing in the house of his wife with the children. Then change of address was not mala fide, but for the reasons stated therein. The Petitioner was unaware that his presence was required before the Court.
8. The learned Trial Court finding his absence during the trial, issued warrants and eventually declared him a Proclaimed Offender vide Order dated 07.03.20222. The Petitioner was apprehended on 03.04.2024 by the Police from Dhaba, whereafter the Petitioner claims that he became aware that the Police had been searching for him since he had neither surrendered before the Jail nor appeared in the Court.
9. The Petitioner filed Regular Bail Application before the learned Trial Court, but it was dismissed. His Regular Bail Application filed before this Court vide Bail Appln. No. 2330/2024 was also dismissed vide Order dated 19.03.2025.
10. The Order dated 07.03.2022 declaring the Petitioner as Proclaimed Offender under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’) , has been challenged on the grounds that the Charge-Sheet has been filed for the offences under NDPS Act, which do not fall in the category of offences defined under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. A person can be declared as a Proclaimed Offender only in respectof the offences specifically provided under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. For all other offences, the person can only be declared as a Proclaimed Person, as has been held in the case of Sanjay Bhandari vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Crl. Rev. P.
