Prolonged unexplained absence justifies proclamation under Section 84 BNSS, warranting no interference.

2026:MHC:1437 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL RC No.781 of 2026 N.Rajiniganth S/o.Narayanan, Kilmelrejampalayam, Mannarkudi, Tiruvarur District 614 001 ...Petitioner/

Respondent/Accused Vs The State Rep by the Inspector of Police, Mannarkudi Town Police Station, Crime No.748 of 2001.

...Respondent/

Petitioner/Complainant Prayer : Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 & 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the proclamation order passed in MP.No.1 of 2025 in SC.No.52 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur dated 11.03.2025.

For Petitioner: Ms.P.Keerthana for S.Parthasarathi For Respondent: Mr.R.Kishore Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The Criminal Revision challenges the proclamation order passed in M.P.No.1/2025 in S.C.No.52/2021 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur, dated 11.03.2025.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to illness, the petitioner was not in a position to appear before this Court. In the meanwhile, the Court had passed an impugned order declaring him as the proclaimed offender as per Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

4. However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent would strongly oppose the application and would contend that the crime number is of the year 2001 and there are about eleven accused, and the present accused/petitioner is A11. After taking cognizance, the case was assigned as S.C.No.132 of 2009. Since A6 and A11 were absent, the case was split up as S.C.No.151 of 2017, and thereafter, this petitioner/A11 was again absent, and again the case was split as S.C.No.52 of 2021. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would further submit that the petitioner has been absent since 2001.

5. Taking into consideration of the above aspect, this Court is of the firm view that the case could not be proceeded with only because of the absence of the petitioner. Furthermore still he has not appeared before this Court. Therefore, this Court absolutely does not find any ground to interfere with the proclamation order dated 11.03.2025 in M.P.No.1/2025 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.