Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) provides that if any Court has reason to believe that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded to avoid the execution of such warrant, the Court may publish a written proclamation for his appearance.
Moreover, Section 83 gives power to the court, at any time after the issue of the proclamation, to order the attachment of any property, movable or immovable or both, belonging to the proclaimed person who has been absconding.
Likewise, there is also a provision under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. to record evidence in the absence of an absconding accused person when there is no immediate prospect of arresting him.
So, there are serious consequences for a person who is absconding.
But, what exactly is meant by “absconding”? Who can be said to be an absconder?
In the case of Kartarey v. State of U.P., (1976) 1 SCC 172, the Supreme Court (a bench of Justices P.N. Bhagwati and R.S. Sarkaria) held that to be an “absconder” in the eye of law, it is not necessary that a person should have run away from his home, and that, it is sufficient if he hides himself to evade the process of law, even if the hiding place be his own home.
Likewise, in the case of Jayendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 7 SCC 104, by quoting from dictionaries, the Supreme Court held as under:
“The term “absconding” has been defined in several dictionaries. We may refer to some of them:
Black's Law Dictionary — To depart secretly or suddenly, especially to avoid arrest, prosecution or service of process.
P. Ramanatha Aiyar — primary meaning of word is “to hide”.
Oxford English Dictionary — “To bide or sow away”.
Words and Phrases — “clandestine manner/intent to avoid legal process”.”
In this case, the Supreme Court also approvingly referred to the judgment in the aforesaid Kartarey case.
So, basically, an absconder is a person who is hiding himself to evade the process of law, even if the hiding place be his own home.
