Accused In Rape, POCSO Case Can't Be Declared 'Proclaimed Offender', Only 'Proclaimed Person': Delhi High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
16 April 2026 3:45 PM IST
The Delhi High Court has clarified that an accused facing charges under rape and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot be declared a “proclaimed offender” under Section 82 CrPC, as such offences do not fall within the category specified under Section 82(4).
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while modifying a Sessions Court order which had declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender in a case involving allegations under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The Court held that while proclamation proceedings under Section 82(1) CrPC can be initiated against an absconding accused, the designation of “proclaimed offender” is restricted only to those accused of offences specifically enumerated under Section 82(4).
Since offences under Section 376 IPC and the POCSO Act are not included in that list, the petitioner could only be treated as a “proclaimed person”.
“Section 82(4) of Cr.P.C. specifically enumerates certain offences under the IPC in respect of which an absconding person may be declared a proclaimed offender. Admittedly, Section 376 of IPC or Section 6 of the POCSO Act do not find mention among the offences specified under Section 82(4) of Cr.P.C.,” the Court said.
It relied on Sanjay Bhandari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) where ta coordinate bench held that where a proclamation has been issued against a person accused of an offence other than those specifically enumerated under Section 82(4) of Cr.P.C., such a person would be treated as a „proclaimed person‟ and not as a „proclaimed offender‟.
At the same time, the Court rejected the petitioner's contention that he could not be treated as absconding since he had been pursuing anticipatory bail remedies.
It relied on Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024) where the Supreme Court held that merely filing an anticipatory bail application does not amount to appearance before the court and does not bar proceedings under Section 82 CrPC.
Accordingly, the High Court modified the impugned order to the extent that the petitioner be treated as a “proclaimed person” instead of a “proclaimed offender”.
Appearance: Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with Ms. Amisha Dahiya, Advocate for Respondent
Case title: Mohd Aman Rana v. State
Case no.: CRL.REV.P. 37/2024