INTRODUCTION
The Indian criminal justice system is designed to strike a delicate balance: it must protect the rights of the accused, but it must also ensure that no one evades the process of law. When an accused person wilfully avoids appearing before the court, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) provides an extraordinary set of measures under Sections 82 to 86—proclamation and attachment—to bring fugitives to justice. These provisions, often resorted to in high-profile or sensitive matters, sometimes spark heated debates about misuse, abuse of power, and violation of fundamental rights.
Proclamation under Section 82
Section 82 deals with proclamation for a person absconding. When a court has reason to believe that an accused is hiding to avoid arrest, and a warrant has already been issued but not executed, the court may publish a written proclamation requiring the person to appear at a specified place and time, giving them not less than thirty days from the date of publication.
This mechanism turns up frequently in cases involving economic offences, organized crime, or when an influential person uses clout to dodge proceedings. The proclamation must be read in a conspicuous place of the accused’s residence, affixed to some prominent part of the house, and published in a local newspaper, ensuring that the message reaches the absconder and the local community.
A declared proclaimed offender faces serious consequences—not just the threat of arrest but also the stigma that comes with such a declaration.
Section 83: Attachment of Property
Proclamation alone may not suffice to compel surrender. Section 83 arms the court with power to attach the property of the proclaimed person. Once proclamation is issued under Section 82, the court may order attachment of any property—movable or immovable—belonging to the absconder.
Attachment acts as both a coercive and punitive tool. It targets the absconder’s assets, creating economic pressure to surrender. The court must record reasons before attaching property. In practice, though, allegations of arbitrary attachment orders surface frequently, especially when large sums, businesses or family homes are targeted, affecting dependents who may have no role in the accused’s actions.
Sections 84–86: Claims, Restoration, and Sale
Section 84 enables any third party with an interest in the attached property to claim it or object to the attachment. The claim must show legal interest that overrides the state’s right of attachment. If the proclaimed person appears within the time specified, the attachment ceases under Section 85, and the property is restored.
However, if the person does not appear within the period, the attached property is at risk of being sold. After six months, the court may order its sale, and the proceeds are used to settle any fines or compensation due. Any balance goes back to the person if they later appear and claim it. This sequence demonstrates the law’s intention: to be fair yet firm.
Section 86 provides for appeal and revision regarding orders of attachment or sale, offering a last shield against unjust loss.
The Fine Balance: Safeguard vs Misuse
Though these sections appear straightforward, the power they confer is significant—and prone to misuse. Critics argue that police and prosecuting agencies sometimes jump to declare an accused a proclaimed offender, bypassing genuine attempts to execute warrants. There are instances where attachment is ordered before fully exhausting other options to secure presence. Family members may find themselves helpless, watching their ancestral property sealed for acts they did not commit.
This misuse is more evident in politically motivated cases or vendettas. A proclamation, once issued, is not easily recalled, and stigma sticks. The mere declaration is often used to paint the accused as a fugitive, regardless of the actual circumstances.
A Controversial Example: The Vijay Mallya Saga
Few cases illustrate the high-voltage use and controversy surrounding these provisions better than that of Vijay Mallya. The liquor baron and former Member of Parliament was accused of defaulting on massive bank loans running into thousands of crores. When he left India in 2016 and failed to appear despite repeated summons, an Indian court declared him a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC.
Subsequently, his properties in India were attached under Section 83. His high-value assets—luxury cars, yachts, real estate—became symbolic trophies of the state’s attempt to recover dues. While the attachment orders were justified on paper, critics point out that they mostly impacted the banks and creditors, who found themselves fighting over leftovers.
Mallya’s defense team argued that he did not abscond but left the country lawfully and offered to negotiate settlements. Meanwhile, the label of ‘fugitive economic offender’ stuck, bolstered by the proclamation. The case went on to feed debates about whether attachment and proclamation serve justice or just deliver political optics when extradition is complex. Even now, Mallya’s extradition from the UK is tangled in legal back-and-forth, demonstrating that proclamation and attachment, though powerful, have practical limits when borders and international law come into play.
Judicial Guidance: Not a Weapon of Harassment
Indian courts have repeatedly emphasized that these sections must not be used lightly. In P.K. Ghosh v. J.G. Rajput (1995), the Supreme Court cautioned against routine use of proclamation, reminding that the drastic step affects a person’s liberty and property rights. Courts have held that only when all efforts to arrest fail should a proclamation be issued. The reason must be clear and convincing, backed by evidence that the accused is indeed absconding to avoid the law.
Similarly, attachment must not become a tool to punish innocent family members. In K.C. Builders v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2004), the apex court highlighted that attachment must strictly follow procedural safeguards.
Realities on the Ground
Despite the safeguards, in practice, local courts often face immense pressure—political, social, or from media glare—when handling high-profile fugitives. For investigators, proclamation and attachment become handy tools to show progress in cases where actual custody seems impossible. Public opinion, whipped up by 24/7 news cycles, demands visible action. A ‘proclaimed offender’ tag or sealed mansion offers that spectacle.
On the other hand, for genuine victims—banks defrauded by scamsters, families grieving heinous crimes—the provisions are a lifeline when an accused tries to buy time or escape abroad.
Conclusion: Striking a Better Balance
Sections 82 to 86 CrPC stand at the crossroads of individual rights and the need for effective law enforcement. Used correctly, they prevent powerful or resourceful accused persons from mocking the system by vanishing into thin air. But when misapplied, they risk turning the process itself into a punishment, inflicting damage even before guilt is proven.
It is crucial for courts and investigators to remember that these provisions are not ends in themselves but means to an end—appearance of the accused, fair trial, and justice for victims. Due diligence, transparency, and judicial oversight are the only ways to ensure that proclamation and attachment remain the measured legal tools they were meant to be, not blunt instruments of harassment.
The story of Vijay Mallya, like that of many lesser-known cases in small towns and cities, reminds us that the fight for fair procedure never ends. The power to proclaim and attach must be exercised with caution, guided by both the letter and the spirit of the law.
CONTRIBUTED BY : LAKSHAY NANDWANI (INTERN)