'Authorities Made No Genuine Efforts To Contact Him': Chennai Court Grants Interim Bail To British Resident Who Was Declared Proclaimed Offender

The court noted that there was a difference between the terms “Proclaimed person” and a “Proclaimed offender”. The court said that only a person who was evading the execution of an arrest warrant issued under specific sections of the IPC could be termed a proclaimed offender and any other person would be declared a proclaimed person.

“Admittedly, the case against Petitioner/Accused Harsha Rao have been split-up and assigned C.C.No.1016 of 2008 only due to the pendency of NBW without execution. While so, admittedly, the Petitioner/Accused have been declared as Proclaimed Offender by this Court on earlier occasion. But, whereas, as per the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Courts as discussed above, the terms “proclaimed person” and “proclaimed offender” have different connotations. A person who is evading the execution of warrants of arrest issued under the particular Sections of the IPC which are mentioned in Section 82(4) of Cr.P.C. can only be declared to be a proclaimed offender and the persons under the other provisions of the IPC and the laws, can be declared to be a proclaimed person in terms of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C,” the court noted.

The court was dealing with an interim bail application filed by Harsha Rao, against whom the CBI had registered a case alleging that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with other persons and unauthorizedly diverted 24 local lines, routing incoming international calls meant for Chennai and connecting them to local subscribers, and thus causing revenue loss to the Department of Telecommunications and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

The CBI had filed final report for offences under Section 120B read with Section 420 f IPC and Section 20 read with Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. The co-accused were sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 20 read with Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act. Meanwhile, the case against Rao was split up on February 4, 2008. The case was entered in the Long Pending Case Register and Rao was declared a Proclaimed offender on February 21, 2023 under Section 82 CrPC.

A red notice was issued against Rao through Interpol and based on the same, a look out circular was also issued. Rao was arrested on July 15, 2025 when he arrived at Mumbai and was remanded by the court.

Rao's counsels argued that the arrest was illegal as the arrest memo did not specify the grounds of arrest as required by law. It was also argued that Rao was declared a proclaimed offender for “evading the process of law”, but it was not specified as to how he was evading the process of law.

The counsels also pointed out that Rao was illegally declared as “Proclaimed offender”. It was argued that as per Section 82(4) of the CrPC, a person could be declared a “proclaimed offender” only of he is accused of offences punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the IPC. It the present case, since Rao was charged with offences under Section 120B read with Section 420 of IPC, it was argued that he could at best be declared as “Proclaimed person” and not “proclaimed offender”.

The court agreed with the submissions and noted that there was no evidence to point that the court had sufficient reason to believe that Rao was intentionally absconding or concealing himself. The court noted that Rao had been residing in UK since 2002, before filing of the chargesheet, and could not have known about the proceedings against him. The court also noted that Rao had visited India in 2013, 2014, and 2016 but was never stopped, apprehended, or even informed about the pending cases against him.

The court also noted that there was nothing to show that the authorities had made a genuine effort to contact Rao before declaring him absconding. The court also noted that the procedure specified for serving summons to non-residents through Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties was not followed in the present case.

Noting the facts and other mitigating factors, including the health and family condition, the court was inclined to grant interim bail to Rao upon conditions.