The Jharkhand High Court holds that an order issuing proclamation under Section 82 BNSS (corresponding to Section 82 CrPC) must mandatorily stipulate the time and place for the accused’s appearance. Non-compliance renders the order illegal and liable to be quashed, reaffirming settled precedent and providing binding authority within Jharkhand.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Cr.M.P./3016/2025 of VIJAY PASWAN @ BIJAY PASWAN Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND |
| CNR | JHHC010349292025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Jharkhand; affirms settled principle |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms settled principles regarding requirements under Section 82 BNSS/CrPC |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether an order under Section 82 BNSS/CrPC is valid if it fails to specify the time and place for the accused’s appearance |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court reiterated that a magistrate issuing a proclamation under Section 82 must not only record satisfaction that the accused is absconding, but also, in the same order, specify the time and place for the accused’s appearance. Omission to include these details amounts to grave illegality and renders the proclamation unsustainable in law. The continuation of such an order is considered an abuse of process, and must be quashed. The court permitted issuance of a fresh order in accordance with law. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The impugned proclamation under Section 82 was issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, against the petitioner in Barkatha P.S. Case No.82 of 2025, without fixing time and place for appearance. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
| Follows | Settled principle requiring time and place specification in orders under Section 82 BNSS/CrPC |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms the mandatory requirement that all Section 82 BNSS/CrPC proclamations must specify the time and place for the accused’s appearance.
- An omission of these details vitiates the entire order, amounting to “grave illegality.”
- Continuation of such a defective proclamation is considered “abuse of process of law.”
- Magistrates must exercise caution to comply meticulously with all procedural prerequisites under Section 82.
- Lawyers can rely on this judgment to challenge proclamation orders lacking time and place particulars.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court carefully considered the submissions of both parties and scrutinised the impugned order and record.
- It reiterated the established principle that any proclamation under Section 82 BNSS/CrPC must state the time and place for the accused’s appearance, in addition to recording the court’s satisfaction regarding abscondence or concealment.
- The impugned order was found lacking both time and place specifics, violating the express and mandatory requirements of law.
- Such an omission was held to constitute a “grave illegality,” rendering the order unsustainable in law.
- The court therefore quashed the impugned proclamation and granted liberty for the Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The proclamation order is not sustainable as it was issued without fixing the time and place for appearance as required by law.
- Requested that the impugned order be quashed.
State
- Opposed the criminal miscellaneous petition.
- Submitted that since the proclamation has been issued, it is incumbent on the accused to appear before the court after thirty days during court hours.
- Argued that the petition is without merit and should be dismissed.
Factual Background
The case arose out of Barkatha P.S. Case No.82 of 2025, wherein the Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, issued a proclamation under Section 82 BNSS/CrPC against the petitioner, Vijay Paswan @ Bijay Paswan. The impugned order, dated 04.09.2025, did not fix the requisite time or place for the petitioner’s appearance, which formed the basis of the challenge before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The court dealt with Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which, like its predecessor under CrPC, sets out the procedure for issuance of proclamation against absconding accused persons.
- Judicial satisfaction regarding the accused’s concealment or absconding is prerequisite.
- The statute mandates that the proclamation must specify a time and place for the accused’s appearance before the court.
- The omission of these specifics was declared a non-compliance with the mandatory statutory provision.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment clarifies that omission of time and place in a Section 82 proclamation amounts to a “grave illegality” and constitutes an “abuse of process,” warranting outright quashing of the order.
- Liberty is granted for the Magistrate to issue a fresh order in compliance with law.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court affirmed and applied the settled procedural law requiring time and place specification in Section 82 proclamations.