Proclaimed Person vs. Proclaimed Offender Under the BNSS: Why the Distinction Still Matters

Understanding the Legal Consequences of Proclamation Proceedings Under the BNSS, 2023

The ability of criminal courts to proceed against absconding accused persons is an essential feature of India’s criminal justice system. This article examines the distinction between a “proclaimed person” and a “proclaimed offender” under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and its practical consequences.

Introduction

When an accused deliberately evades arrest or avoids appearing before the court despite the issuance of warrants, the law empowers courts to initiate proclamation proceedings and, in appropriate cases, attach the person’s property.

While these powers are intended to ensure that criminal proceedings are not frustrated by absconding accused persons, they also carry serious legal consequences. One aspect that frequently creates confusion is the distinction between a “proclaimed person” and a “proclaimed offender.”

The two expressions are often used interchangeably in judicial orders, police records, and media reports. However, they are not synonymous in law.

With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) with effect from 1 July 2024, the statutory framework governing proclamation proceedings has substantially been retained. Consequently, the judicial principles evolved under the CrPC continue to provide valuable guidance in interpreting the corresponding provisions of the BNSS.

Recent judicial decisions have once again highlighted that the distinction determines the extent of criminal liability, the applicability of enhanced penal consequences, and the legality of orders passed by criminal courts.

The BNSS Framework Governing Proclamation Proceedings

The BNSS preserves the mechanism whereby a court may issue a proclamation against an accused who has absconded or is concealing himself to avoid execution of an arrest warrant. Before issuing such a proclamation, the court must satisfy itself that:

• a warrant of arrest has already been issued;
• the accused has absconded or is deliberately concealing himself; and
• coercive measures have become necessary to secure the accused’s presence.

The proclamation must specify a date for appearance that complies with the statutory notice period and must be published in the manner prescribed by the BNSS.

If the accused fails to appear within the stipulated period, the court may proceed with further coercive measures, including attachment of property where the statutory requirements are fulfilled.

However, the BNSS — like the erstwhile CrPC — creates two distinct legal categories:

1. A person against whom a proclamation has been issued (a proclaimed person).
2. A person who may legally be declared a proclaimed offender.

The distinction between these categories remains significant.

When Can a Court Declare Someone a Proclaimed Offender?

The BNSS continues the legislative approach adopted under the CrPC by permitting the designation of “proclaimed offender” only in respect of specified serious offences. These offences broadly include grave crimes such as:

• murder;
• culpable homicide;
• kidnapping;
• rape;
• robbery;
• dacoity;
• dacoity with murder; and
• certain other offences specifically identified in the statute.

Accordingly, every absconding accused is not automatically a proclaimed offender. Where the alleged offence falls outside the specified statutory list, the court may issue a proclamation requiring appearance, but the accused cannot legally be designated a proclaimed offender merely because he has failed to appear.

This limitation reflects a conscious legislative choice to reserve the more severe designation for offences regarded as particularly serious.

Why the Distinction Is Legally Significant

The distinction is not one of terminology alone. It has important procedural as well as substantive consequences. A declaration as a proclaimed offender carries more severe legal implications than an ordinary proclamation. It may affect:

• the nature of subsequent criminal proceedings;
• exposure to enhanced penal consequences for non-compliance with the proclamation;
• investigative powers exercised by law enforcement agencies;
• attachment and recovery proceedings;
• applications for anticipatory or regular bail; and
• the accused’s overall litigation strategy.

Given these consequences, courts are expected to exercise caution before using the expression “proclaimed offender.” An erroneous declaration may render the proclamation vulnerable to judicial review.

Judicial Interpretation: A Consistent Approach

Although the BNSS is relatively recent, the corresponding provisions are substantially similar to those contained in the CrPC. Consequently, earlier judicial precedents remain persuasive unless inconsistent with the new statutory framework.

A consistent line of decisions has held that courts cannot mechanically declare every absconding accused to be a proclaimed offender.

Delhi High Court

In Avinash Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2026)¹, the Delhi High Court examined proclamation proceedings initiated against an accused facing prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

The Court observed that although the accused could be subjected to proclamation proceedings, offences under the NDPS Act were not among the offences specified for declaration as a proclaimed offender.

Accordingly, the Court modified the order, holding that the accused could only be treated as a proclaimed person. The decision reinforces the principle that courts must adhere strictly to the statutory language rather than expand the category of proclaimed offenders through judicial interpretation.

Earlier High Court Decisions

The Delhi High Court’s reasoning is consistent with earlier judicial precedents.

In Sanjay Bhandari v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)², proclamation proceedings arising from offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act were examined. The Court held that since the alleged offences did not fall within the specified statutory category, the declaration as a proclaimed offender could not be sustained.

Likewise, in Rishabh Sethi v. State of Rajasthan³, involving proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Rajasthan High Court recognised that while proclamation proceedings were permissible, the accused could not legally be declared a proclaimed offender.

These decisions establish an important principle: the seriousness of an offence by itself does not authorise a court to confer the status of proclaimed offender. The statutory requirements must first be satisfied.

Why Courts Have Adopted a Strict Interpretation

The judicial reasoning is rooted in well-established principles of statutory interpretation. Where Parliament has expressly identified the offences for which proclaimed offender status may be invoked, courts cannot enlarge that list through interpretation.

Doing so would:

• render the statutory distinction meaningless;
• expose accused persons to enhanced penal consequences not contemplated by law;
• undermine legislative intent; and
• dilute the principle that penal statutes must be interpreted strictly.

The judiciary has therefore consistently held that the expression “proclaimed offender” cannot become a generic description for every absconding accused.

Practical Implications for Businesses and Individuals

Although proclamation proceedings are commonly associated with conventional criminal offences, they increasingly arise in commercial and regulatory disputes involving company directors, promoters, and key managerial personnel.

Courts regularly encounter proclamation proceedings in cases involving:

• economic offences;
• corporate fraud investigations;
• financial crimes;
• tax prosecutions;
• cheque dishonour matters;
• corruption cases; and
• prosecutions under special statutes.

Many of these offences do not fall within the statutory category permitting declaration as a proclaimed offender.

Accordingly, companies and individuals facing criminal proceedings should carefully examine whether the designation used in court orders accurately reflects the statutory requirements. An incorrect declaration may have significant consequences for bail proceedings, extradition matters, reputation management, and cross-border regulatory compliance.

Key Takeaways

The transition from the CrPC to the BNSS has not altered the fundamental distinction between proclamation proceedings and proclaimed offender status. The legal position remains clear:

• Every proclaimed offender is the subject of a proclamation, but every proclaimed person is not a proclaimed offender.
• The designation of proclaimed offender is available only in respect of offences specifically identified by statute.
• Courts cannot expand the statutory list based on the perceived seriousness of an offence.
• Orders incorrectly declaring an accused to be a proclaimed offender may be open to challenge before higher courts.

As criminal litigation increasingly intersects with corporate investigations, financial offences, and regulatory enforcement, ensuring procedural compliance assumes even greater importance. Courts must therefore exercise care in applying the statutory framework, while litigants should remain vigilant in scrutinising whether proclamation proceedings have been conducted in accordance with law.

Last Updated on 27 July, 2026