If any Court has reason to believe that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation and the same was upheld by High Court of Delhi through the learned bench led by JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD in the case of KAPIL KUMAR vs. STATE [BAIL APPLN. 806/2019] on 07.03.2022.
The facts of the case are that M/s R.C. Info Systems gave the development rights of a project named Kessel I Valley to M/s AMR Infrastructures Ltd. Owing to his ill health, the Petitioner was made one of the Directors of M/s AMR and he resigned from the directorship of M/s AMR. It is stated that the project remained incomplete and soon complaints started pouring in. The FIR states that M/s AMR and its Directors deliberately hatched a plan to lure investors in order to make them invest money that they eventually used to satisfy personal financial objectives.
A Non-Bailable Warrant was issued against the Petitioners. As the NBWs remained unexecuted, process under Section 82 CrPC was initiated against the Petitioners and the Petitioners were declared Proclaimed Offenders. Aggrieved by these Orders, the Petitioners have approached this Court, impugning the same.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the Petitioner was made an accused only by way of the second supplementary chargesheet. The Petitioner had always been present pursuant to notice being issued. It was further submitted that the Petitioner was not named in FIR and that no role in particular has been attributed to him. The Petitioner has joined the investigation on three separate occasions and did not join further investigation as he was not called for the same. It was contended that the procedure as laid down under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. has not been followed and , therefore, the impugned Order declaring PO is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
The respondent’s counsel submitted that for the purposes of anticipatory bail, a proclaimed offender includes an offender or a proclaimed person under Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., and, therefore, the Petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail.
The Court did not deem fit to grant an anticipatory bail to the Petitioners as they played a central role in the diversion of funds from the commercial project that was sought to be instituted and actively duped the investors of their hard-earned money. The Court observed that, “If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.”
Judgment reviewed by – Shristi Suman