Case at a glance: The Gujarat High Court has quashed a Section 82 CrPC proclamation and an order to record evidence in an accused's absence after it emerged that the police report relied on a non-existent witness at a non-existent building. It ordered prosecution of the head constable concerned and laid down guidelines that courts must follow before declaring anyone an absconder.
The petitioner, accused in a 2019 case under IPC Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B and the GPID Act, had anticipatory bail and initially attended trial. After the case was transferred to the Veraval Special Court, notices and warrants came back unserved, and in July 2025 a proclamation was issued with a direction to record evidence in his absence under Section 299 CrPC.
He said he was never served notice of the transfer and still lived at the address given at the bail stage. The police report rested on a statement from a person at a named apartment; the Police Inspector later reported that no such person or building existed, and the State disclosed that a head constable had been suspended for a forged report.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a proclamation and an order under Section 299 stand without recorded satisfaction that the accused was deliberately evading process?
Satisfaction Before Proclamation
Relying on Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, the Court held that a proclamation requires satisfaction, on record, that the accused knows of the proceedings and is deliberately evading process. The trial court recorded no such satisfaction.
The forged police report made matters worse, and the Court held that departmental action alone was not sufficient; criminal prosecution for a false report in judicial proceedings was required.
What the Court Actually Held
- The proclamation and Section 299 direction were quashed; the petitioner must appear on the next date and evidence will be recorded in his presence.
- The SP, Gir Somnath must conclude the departmental inquiry, and the Veraval court must initiate prosecution of the head constable.
- Guidelines: police reports must state deliberate concealment, not mere non-availability; an affidavit must give address, phone and email and explain non-production; a photo of the affixed warrant must be annexed; the case diary must record two local residents verifying the address.
- The order is to be circulated to all District Courts in Gujarat.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It requires recorded satisfaction of deliberate evasion before proclamation.
- It creates verification safeguards against false police reports.
- It holds police accountable for fabricated service reports.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Defence Counsel
- Check whether the trial court recorded satisfaction of deliberate evasion.
- Scrutinise service reports for verifiable details.
For Trial Courts
- Insist on the new verification details before issuing proclamations.
Key Takeaways
- Proclamation needs recorded satisfaction.
- The police report relied on a non-existent witness.
- Prosecution of the head constable ordered.
- Guidelines for all Gujarat courts.
Frequently Asked Questions
It relied on a person and building that the Police Inspector later reported did not exist.
Statements of deliberate concealment, contact details, a photo of the affixed warrant, and verification by two local residents.
No. The trial continues, with evidence recorded in his presence.
Conclusion
The judgment protects accused persons from proclamations based on shoddy or false service reports.
Practical takeaway: In Gujarat, courts must now have verifiable material before declaring anyone an absconder.