Person In Contact With Investigating Agency Can’t Be Absconding: Delhi High Court Quashes Proclaimed Offender Order Against Australian National
The Court held that where an accused remains in continuous communication with the investigating agency and responds to its directions, he cannot be termed as absconding, and proclamation proceedings initiated without proper service and disclosure of material facts are liable to be set aside.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a person who remains in continuous communication with the investigating agency and responds to its directions cannot, in the ordinary course, be treated as absconding or concealing himself from the process of law.
The Court was hearing a petition seeking the setting aside of an order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
A Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed: “A person who is in continuous communication with the investigating agency and is responding to its directions cannot, in the ordinary course, be said to be absconding or concealing himself from the process of law. Moreover, the failure of the investigating agency to inform the petitioner about the proclamation proceedings, despite being in regular contact with him, assumes significance and lends credence to the petitioner’s contention that he was kept unaware of the same”.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for the petitioner, while Anubha Bhardwaj, SPP for CBI, appeared for the respondents.
Background
The case arose out of FIR proceedings registered under Sections 376 and 506 IPC. The petitioner, who was residing abroad, challenged the order passed by the learned CMM, Saket Courts, declaring him a proclaimed person.
It was the petitioner’s case that he had left India in March 2018 and was residing in Australia, a fact which was within the knowledge of the investigating agency. He contended that despite this, no effort was made to serve him through legally recognised modes applicable to persons residing outside India.
The petitioner further asserted that he remained in continuous communication with the investigating agency, including responding to notices issued under Section 160 CrPC and furnishing documents as required. He also relied on the travel restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic to explain his inability to physically appear in India.
On the other hand, the investigating agency contended that the petitioner had deliberately evaded the process of law, justifying issuance of non-bailable warrants, initiation of proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC, and issuance of Look Out Circular.
Court’s Observation
The Court noted that the investigating agency was fully aware that the petitioner was residing abroad, yet no steps were taken to serve him at his foreign address through recognised legal channels.
It was observed that there was no material to show that service was attempted through the Ministry of External Affairs or any other appropriate mode, despite the availability of the petitioner’s address abroad.
Relying on precedent, the Court emphasised that the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC requires strict compliance with procedural safeguards, including proper service and satisfaction regarding concealment.
The Court also examined the conduct of the petitioner and found that he had remained in continuous contact with the investigating agency.
It noted that the petitioner had responded to notices, furnished documents, and expressed willingness to participate in the investigation. It further observed that notices under Section 160 CrPC had been issued to him even after the initiation of proclamation proceedings.
The Court found a contradiction in the conduct of the investigating agency, which, on one hand, treated the petitioner as absconding, and on the other hand, continued to engage with him in the investigation.
The Court found that despite being in regular contact with the petitioner, the investigating agency had failed to inform him about the proclamation proceedings and the order declaring him a proclaimed person.
This omission was held to be a significant factor undermining the validity of the proceedings.
The Court further took note of the global travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic and the petitioner’s inability to travel from Australia to India.
It held that such an inability could not be treated as deliberate evasion, particularly when the petitioner had demonstrated willingness to cooperate and had even sought permission to travel.
The Court clarified that an earlier order of the High Court declining to interfere with the rejection of the recall application did not preclude examination of the legality of the proclamation order.
It noted that the proclamation order itself had not been brought to the notice of the Court in earlier proceedings and therefore its validity remained open to challenge.
On an overall assessment, the Court held that the initiation and culmination of proceedings under Section 82 CrPC were not sustainable.
The Court concluded that “the initiation and culmination of proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C.… cannot be sustained in law.”
Conclusion
The Court set aside the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, along with all consequential proceedings. It further quashed the Look Out Circular and all coercive steps taken pursuant to the proclamation proceedings.
The petitioner was directed to appear before the concerned trial court within four weeks and join the proceedings, which were directed to continue in accordance with the law.
Cause Title: Manish Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2499)
Appearances
Petitioner: Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate with Aekta Vats and Janvi, Advocates
Respondents: Anubha Bhardwaj, SPP for CBI, with Ananya Shamshery and Vijay Misra, Advocates
