Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5147
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J
Manish Popli – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 2454/2022 | W.P. (Crl.) No. 1543/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Maninder Singh, Aekta Vats, Janvi
For the Respondents: Anubha Bhardwaj, Ananya Shamshery, Vijay Misra
Proclamation proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure require diligent service and proof of intentional evasion. An accused who actively cooperates with investigators and is unable to travel due to legally recognized restrictions cannot be deemed a proclaimed person or an absconder.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 82 and 83 - Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 506, 384, 120B - Proclamation order declaring accused as 'proclaimed person' - Validity of - Requirements of service - Principle of natural justice - Proclamation proceedings cannot be initiated without proper service and due diligence - Mere issuance of warrant is not sufficient to declare a person as an absconder if they have not been served at their correct residence known to the investigating agency. (Paras 33, 34, 35, 41, 42)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Absconding - Essential elements - A person in continuous communication with the investigating agency and responding to notices cannot be termed an absconder - Non-appearance due to global travel restrictions during a pandemic cannot be held against an accused to justify punitive measures like proclamation. (Paras 41, 43, 49, 50)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner faced criminal charges and was subsequently declared a 'proclaimed person' under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner challenged this, asserting that despite being a foreign resident, the investigating agency had deliberately concealed his location and failed to effect proper service. The petitioner argued that he was in constant communication with the investigators, provided documents, and was prevented from returning solely due to international travel restrictions.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the investigating agency was aware of the petitioner's foreign residence throughout the proceedings but failed to serve summons through the prescribed legal channels. Furthermore, since the petitioner was actively cooperating and responding via electronic means, he could not be considered as 'absconding' or 'concealing' himself from the law.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the proclamation proceedings against a foreign resident, whether the petitioner could be classified as an absconder despite active cooperation, and whether non-appearance due to uncontrollable travel restrictions warrants such coercive measures.
Ratio Decidendi: Proclamation proceedings must strictly comply with procedural service requirements. Declaring an individual a proclaimed person based on non-service at an incorrect address, while the individual is actively communicating with investigators, is illegal and violates the right to a fair process.
Result: Petition allowed; impugned proclamation order and all consequential proceedings including lookout circulars set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges proclamation orders due to lack of service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. petitioner argues genuine efforts to cooperate during pandemic. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. cbi asserts maintenance of absolute abscondance status. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. state claims procedural validity of proclamation orders. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. procedural challenges to ongoing coercive legal measures. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. parties reiterate arguments on procedural fairness and abscondance. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 7. police failed to serve notice properly abroad. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 8. continuous investigation interaction negates abscondance claim. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 9. previous court order does not preclude substantive review. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 10. impugned proclamation orders and coercive measures quashed. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 13.12.2019, declaring the petitioner as „proclaimed person‟, passed by the learned CMM (South-East), Saket District Court, New Delhi in FIR bearing no. 162/2018, registered at Police Station Defence Colony, Delhi, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC‟], and subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom in case titled „State v. Manish Popli @ Aashu‟, CBI/22/2021, pending before the Court of the learned CMM, Rouse Avenue Court, Delhi.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND Case of the Petitioner – Averments in Crl.M.C. 2454/2022
2. The case set up by the petitioner before this Court, as can be culled out from the petition, is that he is an Australian citizen, engaged in immigration services both in Australia and India, in association with his wife, who is a registered migration agent. He states that he is a permanent resident of Australia, residing at Cheltenham, Victoria, and visits India only occasionally, during which he stays at his parental residence in Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. It is the case of petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as a result of a “honey-trap” conspiracy allegedly involving the prosecutrix, her relatives, and certain police officials. In this regard, it is stated that prosecutrix had alleged that she was raped by the petitioner on 10.03.2018 at Hotel Swagath. The prosecutrix, along with her aunt, had initially approached P.S. Defence Colony and given a complaint, while stating that no action was required at that stage. It is further stated that on 12.03.2018, the petitioner was called by police officials of P.S. Defence Colony on the pretext of inquiry regarding visa-related documents, but was taken to the police station where the prosecutrix and her relatives were already present, and allegations of sexual assault were levelled against him. The petitioner alleges that, despite being innocent, he was subjected to coercion and extortion by the prosecutrix, her relatives, and police officials, pursuant to which an amount of about ₹40 lakhs was arranged, with a further sum allegedly to be paid subsequently. It is stated that he was released from the police station in the early hours of 13.03.2018. Thereafter, on 14.03.2018, one SI Amit Mann and HC Vikas had summoned a petitioner‟s friend Lavneesh to come to Select City Mall for paying the balance amount of ₹10 lakhs, and the CCTV footage of the mall captures their presence. It is further stated that a complaint dated 21.03.2018 was thereafter made by the petitioner‟s associate to the Vigilance authorities, pursuant to which an enquiry was initiated into the said allegations. In support of this contention, the petitioner relies upon a vigilance enquiry conducted by ACP N.S. Minhas, which, according to him, concluded that the petitioner was a victim of both the alleged gang as well as police misconduct. It is stated that on petitioner‟s com
