In a recent proceeding before the Delhi High Court, the accused in a cross-border murder investigation challenged the order of a trial court declaring him a proclaimed offender (PO). The accused, facing allegations of having murdered his wife in London and subsequently absconding, moved the High Court against the declaration made by the Delhi court. However, the High Court refused to grant any interim relief and scheduled the matter for hearing before the roster bench in mid-July.
The accused is implicated in the alleged murder of his wife in the United Kingdom under circumstances described as “mysterious.” Following the incident, the accused fled the UK and was last reported to have been sighted in Gurugram, India. An FIR was registered on December 3, 2024, invoking Sections 498A, 406, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 85, 316, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Subsequently, provisions pertaining to dowry death were incorporated. The accused was declared a proclaimed offender by the Delhi court on May 1, following non-appearance despite summons and procedural notices.
Counsel for the accused, Advocate Varun Deswal, contended that the declaration of proclaimed offender was effected without adherence to statutory mandates, specifically highlighting the absence of issuance of notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires appearance before police before such declaration. The accused’s counsel urged the court to reconsider the order, emphasizing potential risks of attachment of the accused’s properties and the precarious status he faced as a proclaimed offender liable to immediate arrest.
The Public Prosecutor, opposing the relief, relied on a confidential Interpol report from the UK, asserting the gravity of the allegations and the necessity of the PO declaration to facilitate investigation and possible surrender or arrest of the accused. The prosecution maintained that the appropriate course for the accused was to surrender and seek bail if so advised.
Justice Pratibha M Singh observed that the matter “will require consideration” and that the issue “is not a case for the vacation bench.” The Court further noted the sensitive nature of the facts, stating, “Deceased stated to have died under mysterious circumstances in the UK. This would require considerations.” Addressing the defense’s apprehensions, the Court remarked, “If the petitioner is arrested, his legal remedies can be availed.” On the question of urgency, the Court queried the defense counsel, “What is the urgency? This is a PO case.”
In light of the submissions and sensitive facts, the High Court declined to stay the proclamation of the accused as a proclaimed offender. The matter was adjourned and listed for hearing on July 15 before the roster bench, thereby deferring substantive adjudication until a fuller hearing.
Source Link
Picture Source :
