Jharkhand HC sets aside proclamation order in POCSO case, citing failure to follow mandatory legal procedure

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 308 | 2026:JHHC:12186

April 27, 2026 : The Jharkhand High Court has set aside a proclamation order issued against an accused in a POCSO case, holding that mandatory legal requirements were not followed before declaring him absconding.

In its order dated April 27, 2026, Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Akbar Mahfouz Alam, who had challenged two orders passed by a Special POCSO Court in Palamau district.

The petitioner had initially sought to quash both the proclamation order dated October 3, 2023, issued under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a subsequent attachment order dated March 6, 2024. However, during the hearing, his counsel chose not to press the challenge against the attachment order, stating that no property had yet been attached.

The High Court, therefore, limited its examination to the validity of the proclamation order. The petitioner argued that the trial court had issued the proclamation without recording a clear finding that he was absconding or deliberately evading arrest. It was also pointed out that the order did not specify any time or place for his appearance, which is a mandatory requirement under law.

Opposing the plea, the State contended that the trial court must have been satisfied about the necessity of issuing the proclamation based on available material on record.

After examining the case, the High Court reiterated the settled legal position that before issuing a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC, a court must explicitly record its satisfaction that the accused is absconding or concealing himself to avoid arrest. Additionally, the order must clearly mention when and where the accused is required to appear.

The court found that the Special Judge had failed on both counts. There was no recorded satisfaction regarding absconding, nor were details of appearance specified in the proclamation order. This, the High Court held, amounted to a clear violation of mandatory procedural safeguards.

Calling the order legally unsustainable, the court observed that continuing such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, it quashed the proclamation order dated October 3, 2023, in relation to the petitioner.

At the same time, the High Court granted liberty to the Special POCSO Court in Palamau to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, if required. With this, the criminal miscellaneous petition was allowed.

Case Reference : Cr.M.P. No. 1119 of 2026, Akbar Mahfouz Alam vs State of Jharkhand; for the petitioner: Mr. Faruque Ansari, Advocate; for the State: Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Addl. P.P.