Delhi HC: an unexecuted warrant doesn't prove absconding; proclamation set aside, but extradition continues

The Delhi High Court set aside a 2014 order declaring an accused in a CBI case a Proclaimed Offender, while refusing to halt his extradition from the Philippines. Section 82(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires the court to have reason to believe that a person has absconded or is concealing himself so that a warrant cannot be executed. Justice Sanjeev Narula held that the mere return of a warrant unexecuted does not meet this test; the satisfaction must rest on material indicating deliberate evasion. The charge-sheet recorded an Australian address, yet the CBI disclosed no attempt to verify it or serve him there, although recognised channels existed.

There was a separate defect: Section 82(4) allows a declaration only for listed offences, and the offences alleged (Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC) are not listed. The Court noted his unexplained delay in approaching it, but held that later conduct cannot supply compliance that was missing when the proclamation was made. The win was narrow. A warrant and a proclamation are distinct processes, and the warrants survive.

Article 8 of the India-Philippines Extradition Treaty requires an arrest warrant, not a declaration under Indian procedure, so the extradition request and INTERPOL Red Notice were not suspended by this judgment. He may seek voluntary surrender under Article 15. The Court expressed no opinion on the allegations. This is a Delhi High Court ruling, binding within Delhi, not a Supreme Court precedent.