Criminal procedure safeguards apply to proclamation and attachment: recorded reasons and strict compliance are mandatory before coercive action.

Proclamation and attachment under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 require recorded judicial satisfaction on objective material that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself; they cannot be ordered mechanically or without preserving the foundational orders on record. On the facts, the proclamation and attachment proceedings were quashed and the attached property was directed to be released. The court also allowed the applicant to surrender before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun within one month for expeditious consideration of bail, and vacated the contempt notice against the Chief Judicial Magistrate after the apology and surrounding circumstances were taken into account.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the consequent attachment of property were valid; (ii) whether the applicant should be permitted to surrender before another Sessions Judge and have the bail application considered expeditiously; (iii) whether the notice for contempt proceedings against the Chief Judicial Magistrate deserved to be continued.

Issue (i): Whether the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the consequent attachment of property were valid.

Analysis: The proclamation and attachment orders were not preserved on the record, and the material did not show who passed them or on what basis. The provisions governing proclamation and attachment are mandatory, the court must first record reasons for believing that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself, and attachment cannot be ordered mechanically or in haste. The power under Section 83 is to secure appearance, not to punish, and it must be exercised on objective material and with judicial application of mind.

Conclusion: The proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 were quashed and the attached property was ordered to be released.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant should be permitted to surrender before another Sessions Judge and have the bail application considered expeditiously.

Analysis: The facts showed that the applicant had been denied a fair opportunity to surrender, while the local judicial atmosphere and administrative arrangement at Tehri Garhwal created a reasonable apprehension that justice would not be promptly available. In those circumstances, a transfer for the limited purpose of surrender and bail was considered appropriate to secure a fair and speedy consideration.

Conclusion: The applicant was permitted to surrender before the Sessions Judge, Dehradun within one month, and the bail application was to be disposed of there in accordance with the earlier order.

Issue (iii): Whether the notice for contempt proceedings against the Chief Judicial Magistrate deserved to be continued.

Analysis: In view of the apology and the surrounding circumstances, the court chose not to proceed further with contempt action, though it strongly disapproved the practice of postponing surrender applications and the handling of proclamation and attachment matters.

Conclusion: The contempt notice was vacated.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded in substantial part: the coercive proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 were annulled, the applicant was given a fresh opportunity to surrender and seek bail before the transferee court, and the contempt notice was discharged.

Ratio Decidendi: Proclamation and attachment under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be ordered only on recorded judicial satisfaction based on objective material, after strict compliance with the mandatory procedure, and not mechanically or without preservation of the foundational orders on the record.

---