YouTube
Print
October 10 2025WHY THE ANNEXURE B FORM IS MANDATORY ALONG WITH A BAIL BOND: DELHI HIGH COURT LANDMARK JUDGMENT
FACT OF CASE In this case, the petitioners were declared Proclaimed Offenders by the trial courts without adherence to proper legal procedure. In one instance, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender even though the address provided for service of notice was incomplete and incorrect. In another instance, the petitioner had never been served any summons or warrants before being declared a proclaimed offender. The Delhi High Court observed that these orders were passed mechanically, without ensuring proper service of notice or verifying the address. ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT The central issue before the Delhi High Court was whether the orders declaring individuals as Proclaimed Offenders under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were legally sustainable when due process of service had not been followed. The Court was also called upon to frame guidelines to prevent arbitrary and routine declarations of individuals as proclaimed offenders. EXPLANATION OF COMPLEX TERMS Proclaimed Offender:A person who absconds or hides to avoid arrest and against whom a proclamation has been issued by a court under Section 82 CrPC, requiring appearance within a specified time, failing which they may be declared a proclaimed offender. Section 82 CrPC:Allows a court to publish a written proclamation requiring an accused who has absconded to appear within 30 days. Failure to do so can result in the person being declared a Proclaimed Offender for certain serious offences. Section 83 CrPC:Empowers the court to attach the movable and immovable property of a proclaimed person after such proclamation is issued. Section 174A IPC:Introduced in 2005, it makes non-appearance in response to a proclamation a separate criminal offence punishable with imprisonment. PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS The petitioners argued that:They were declared proclaimed offenders without being properly served with any summons or warrants.The courts failed to ensure whether notices were sent to the correct addresses. The orders violated their fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC was misused, leading to unjust criminal consequences without proof of evasion. RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS The State contended that:The orders were issued as per the available records showing non-appearance. The declaration was necessary to ensure compliance with the criminal process. However, the State conceded the need for uniform guidelines to prevent routine or erroneous declarations and to ensure fair process in future cases. RELEVANT CASE LAW & LAW DISCUSSION The Court referred to several Supreme Court precedents: Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007):Held that non-bailable warrants should not be issued mechanically; courts must ensure the accused is aware of proceedings. Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra (2012):Provided procedural safeguards to prevent misuse of arrest warrants. Lavesh v. State (2012):Clarified that proclaimed offenders are not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court emphasized that arbitrary issuance of proclamations undermines the fairness of the criminal justice system. It stressed that declaring a person as a proclaimed offender has grave legal consequences, including prosecution under Section 174A IPC. COURT’S OBSERVATIONS The Court observed that:Orders declaring individuals proclaimed offenders were often passed without verifying addresses or ensuring due service of process.Such actions severely impact a person’s liberty and reputation.There was a need for uniformity and accountability in issuing summons, warrants, and proclamations.The problem was systemic — with thousands of persons declared proclaimed offenders without proper inquiry.The Court also acknowledged the assistance of senior legal experts and committees that submitted extensive research and suggestions for reforming procedures. COURT DIRECTIONS / JUDGMENT The Delhi High Court:Quashed the orders declaring the petitioners as proclaimed offenders.Issued comprehensive guidelines for: Proper verification of addresses before issuing warrants.Mandatory recording of reasons for declaring someone a proclaimed offender. Use of photographs, local verification, and digital tools (like ZIPNET, CCTNS). Accountability of police officers and process servers. Publication of proclamations in newspapers and on official websites. Directed that all future orders under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC must strictly comply with procedural safeguards to prevent misuse. Emphasized the State’s duty to pursue proclaimed offenders lawfully and fairly.
WHY ANNEXURE B FORM IS MANDATORY ALONG WITH BAIL BOND The Delhi High Court, in this landmark judgment (SUNIL TYAGI V/s GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR 2021) directed the introduction of the Annexure B Form and even prescribed its specific format to be followed by all trial courts. The form was designed to capture accurate and verifiable information about the accused, such as permanent and present addresses, details of family members, contact numbers, and email IDs. The Court noted that many individuals were being wrongly declared Proclaimed Offenders due to incomplete or incorrect address information and the absence of a uniform data system. To address this, it mandated that every accused person must fill the Annexure B Form at the time of bail—alongside Form 45 CrPC—to ensure that the police, courts, and other authorities could trace the accused effectively during the course of investigation or trial. By providing this standardized format within the judgment, the Court sought to institutionalize accuracy, accountability, and uniformity in criminal record management and to prevent arbitrary proclamations caused by procedural deficiencies.
Author
Adv. ALOK KUMAR
Advocate Serving Delhi NCR
Delhi High Court & District CourtsLL.B.▪︎Faculty of Law▪︎Delhi University
Comments are not allowed on this article.
