CRM-M-12973- 180 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sher Mohammad Ramsons Aqua Ltd. CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik quashing the impugned order dated declared as a proclaimed person in Complaint No. NACT 2404 of 2020 26.06.2020, under Section 138 of 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was summoned to face trial under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated executed, non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner on 29.01.2024 for 19.07.2024. However, the matter was taken up on 16.07.2024 and adjourned to 29.11.2024. On 29.11.2024, as the warrants bailable warrants were issued for 20.02.2025 and thereafter again for 29.05.2025 along with notice to surety and identifier. Subsequently, on 12.11.2025, when the warrants were received back unexecuted, the petitioner through proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., returnable for 11.12.2025. On -2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Sher Mohammad VERSUS Ltd. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C) quashing the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 as a proclaimed person in Complaint No. NACT 2404 of 2020 , under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was summoned to face trial under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 26.02.2021. As the notices and bailable warrants could not be bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner on 29.01.2024 for 19.07.2024. However, the matter was taken up on 16.07.2024 and adjourned to 29.11.2024. On 29.11.2024, as the warrants had not been received back, fresh non bailable warrants were issued for 20.02.2025 and thereafter again for 29.05.2025 along with notice to surety and identifier. Subsequently, on 12.11.2025, when the warrants were received back unexecuted, the petitioner through proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., returnable for 11.12.2025. On -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12973-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C), vide which the petitioner has been as a proclaimed person in Complaint No. NACT 2404 of 2020 dated Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was summoned to face trial under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments . As the notices and bailable warrants could not be bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner on 29.01.2024 for 19.07.2024. However, the matter was taken up on 16.07.2024 and adjourned to had not been received back, fresh non bailable warrants were issued for 20.02.2025 and thereafter again for 29.05.2025 along with notice to surety and identifier. Subsequently, on 12.11.2025, when the warrants were received back unexecuted, the petitioner was ordered to be served through proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., returnable for 11.12.2025. On The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the , for vide which the petitioner has been dated Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was summoned to face trial under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments . As the notices and bailable warrants could not be bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner on 29.01.2024 for 19.07.2024. However, the matter was taken up on 16.07.2024 and adjourned to had not been received back, fresh non- bailable warrants were issued for 20.02.2025 and thereafter again for 29.05.2025 along with notice to surety and identifier. Subsequently, on 12.11.2025, when the was ordered to be served through proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., returnable for 11.12.2025. On TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12973- 11.12.2025, the proclamation was reported to have been duly published on 24.11.2025 and the statement of the executing official was recorded statutory period had not expired and the case was adjourned to 12.01.2026 for the appearance of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not duly served and was consequently declared a proclaimed offender vide order date 12.01.2026. It is contended that the mandatory requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 of the BNSS) were not complied with, as the Court is required to record its satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself and that the warrants could not be executed. Such satisfaction must be based upon the report of execution and the material placed on record. where the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of proclaimed person/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published again. 4. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order unsustainable and 5. He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing. 6. As the short controversy is involved in the present petition, no notice is required to be issued. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the 8. A co "Anita Sharma v. State of Punjab ", date of decision 26.03.2021 the essential requirements of Section -2026 (O&M) 11.12.2025, the proclamation was reported to have been duly published on 24.11.2025 and the statement of the executing official was recorded statutory period had not expired and the case was adjourned to 12.01.2026 for the appearance of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not duly served and was consequently declared a proclaimed offender vide order date . It is contended that the mandatory requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 of the BNSS) were not complied with, as the Court is required to record its satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself and e warrants could not be executed. Such satisfaction must be based upon the report of execution and the material placed on record. here the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing. As the short controversy is involved in the present petition, no notice is required to be issued. I have heard learned counsel for the A co-ordinate Bench of this Court "Anita Sharma v. State of Punjab ", date of decision 26.03.2021 the essential requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. as under: -2- 11.12.2025, the proclamation was reported to have been duly published on 24.11.2025 and the statement of the executing official was recorded, however, the statutory period had not expired and the case was adjourned to 12.01.2026 for the Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not duly served and was consequently declared a proclaimed offender vide order date . It is contended that the mandatory requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 of the BNSS) were not complied with, as the Court is required to record its satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself and e warrants could not be executed. Such satisfaction must be based upon the report of execution and the material placed on record. He further submits that here the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the hearing is less than thirty days, the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order is legally He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the As the short controversy is involved in the present petition, no notice I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Court in CRM-M-14209-2021 titled "Anita Sharma v. State of Punjab ", date of decision 26.03.2021, has summarized Cr.P.C. as under:- 11.12.2025, the proclamation was reported to have been duly published on however, the statutory period had not expired and the case was adjourned to 12.01.2026 for the Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not duly served and was consequently declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated . It is contended that the mandatory requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 of the BNSS) were not complied with, as the Court is required to record its satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself and e warrants could not be executed. Such satisfaction must be based upon the He further submits that here the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the hearing is less than thirty days, the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published legally He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the As the short controversy is involved in the present petition, no notice and perused the record. 2021 titled , has summarized TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12973- "(i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the first issue warrant of arrest against the pe Kumar v. State of Delhi: 2008 Crl. J. 2561 (ii) There must be a report before the whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be exe him. However, the before issuing a Proclamation under Section Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi:2008Crl. J. 2561 (iii) The because the Police is asking for it. The satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot despite reasonable diligence. (See Emperor: AIR 1943 Patna 366 U.P.: 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783 (iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified place. Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance an publication of the proclamation. (See others v. State of Mysore 1969 CriLJ 826 Haryna: 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339 (v) Where the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offend proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See Singh v. State of Punjab (P&II): 2015 (8) RCR (criminal) 166 Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550 (vi) The Proclamation has to be published Section -2026 (O&M) "(i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the first issue warrant of arrest against the pe Kumar v. State of Delhi: 2008 Crl. J. 2561 (ii) There must be a report before the whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be exe him. However, the Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a Proclamation under Section Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi:2008Crl. J. 2561 (iii) The Court cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of course because the Police is asking for it. The satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot despite reasonable diligence. (See Bishundayal Mahton and others v. Emperor: AIR 1943 Patna 366 and U.P.: 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783 (iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified place. Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance an publication of the proclamation. (See others v. State of Mysore 1969 CriLJ 826 Haryna: 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339 (v) Where the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offend proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See Singh v. State of Punjab (P&II): 2015 (8) RCR (criminal) 166 Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550) (vi) The Proclamation has to be published Section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C. For publication, the proclamation has to -3- "(i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi: 2008 Crl. J. 2561). (ii) There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a Proclamation under Section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C.. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi:2008Crl. J. 2561). cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of course because the Police is asking for it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, Bishundayal Mahton and others v. and Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P.: 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783). (iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance an publication of the proclamation. (See GurappaGugal and others v. State of Mysore 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. State of Haryna: 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339). (v) Where the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab (P&II): 2015 (8) RCR (criminal) 166 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in (2) of the Cr.P.C. For publication, the proclamation has to is sine qua non has to Rohit that the person against whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing cuted against is not bound to take evidence in this regard (1) of the Cr.P.C.. (See cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of course must be prima facie satisfied that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so be executed, Bishundayal Mahton and others v. Devender Singh Negi v. State of (iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of GurappaGugal and Shokat Ali v. State of (v) Where the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, er and the Dilbagh and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR in the manner laid down in (2) of the Cr.P.C. For publication, the proclamation has to TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12973- be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuo town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the subclauses (a) and not disjunctive, which means that publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. (See W.B.: 1973 CriLJ 1368 proclamation has to be additionally publis circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily resides. Advisably, proclamation has to be issued with four copies so that one each of the three copies of the proclamation may be affixed to some conspicuous part of the hou ordinarily resides, to some conspicuous place of such town or village and to some conspicuous part of the regarding publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy proclamation is also required to be published in the newspaper. (vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the as to the date and mode of publication of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriL viii) The writing in its specified day in a manner specified in Section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C.. Such statement in writing by the evidence that the requirements of Section 82 have been complied with and that the proclamation was published on such day. (See v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965 (xi) The conditions specified in Section publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. -2026 (O&M) be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuo town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the subclauses (a)-(c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. (See Pawan Kumar Gupta v. The State of W.B.: 1973 CriLJ 1368). Where the proclamation has to be additionally publis circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily resides. Advisably, proclamation has to be issued with four copies so that one each of the three copies of the proclamation may be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides, to some conspicuous place of such town or village and to some conspicuous part of the regarding publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy proclamation is also required to be published in the newspaper. (vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the as to the date and mode of publication of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965 viii) The Court issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in writing in its order that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day in a manner specified in Section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C.. Such statement in writing by the Court evidence that the requirements of Section 82 have been complied with and that the proclamation was published on such day. (See v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965). (xi) The conditions specified in Section publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. -4- be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house. The three (c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of Pawan Kumar Gupta v. The State of ). Where the Court so orders a copy of the proclamation has to be additionally published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily resides. Advisably, proclamation has to be issued with four copies so that one each of the three copies of the proclamation may be affixed to some se or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides, to some conspicuous place of such town or village and to some conspicuous part of the Court-house and report regarding publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also required to be published in the newspaper. (vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the Court as to the date and mode of publication of the proclamation. (See J 965). issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day in a manner specified in Section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C.. Court is declared to be conclusive evidence that the requirements of Section 82 have been complied with and that the proclamation was published on such day. (See Birad Dan (xi) The conditions specified in Section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C. for the publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which us place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be house. The three (c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. are conjunctive there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of Pawan Kumar Gupta v. The State of so orders a copy of the hed in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily resides. Advisably, proclamation has to be issued with four copies so that one each of the three copies of the proclamation may be affixed to some se or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides, to some conspicuous place of such town or village house and report regarding publication may be made on the fourth copy of the will be required where the Court as to the date and mode of publication of the proclamation. (See issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day in a manner specified in Section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C.. declared to be conclusive evidence that the requirements of Section 82 have been complied with Birad Dan (2) of the Cr.P.C. for the publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12973- Any non and renders the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See another 1994 CriLJ 1783 318 9. Perusal of the paper book reveals that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class ordered issuance of proclamation under Section 82 CrPC against the accused for official, it was effected 12.01.2026 for appearance of accused, as the statutory period was not expired. 12.01.2025, itself that a period of 30 days had elapsed 10. This Court finds that the aforesaid procedure adopted by the learned trial Court does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 82(1) CrPC. The mere fact that the case was adjourned for awaiting completion of one month from the date of issuance of the statutory mandate. Section 82(1) CrPC clearly requires that the proclamation must specify a date and place for appearance of the accused, and such date must be not less than 30 clear days from t is not so in the present case. 11. It is well settled that where the period between the date of publication of the proclamation and the date fixed for appearance is less than 30 clear days, the proclamation proceedings are vitiated and the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed offender. I issued and published in accordance with law. Reliance in this regard is rightly placed upon Dilbagh Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (8) RCR (Criminal) 166. -2026 (O&M) Any non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and renders the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a llity. (See Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and another 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh v. The State: 1955 CriLJ 318)". Perusal of the paper book reveals that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class ordered issuance of proclamation under Section 82 CrPC against the accused for 11.12.2025. However as per the statement of , it was effected on 24.11.2025. On 11.12.2025, the case was adjourned to 12.01.2026 for appearance of accused, as the statutory period was not expired. , itself, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed that a period of 30 days had elapsed from the date of issuance of the proclamation. This Court finds that the aforesaid procedure adopted by the learned trial Court does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 82(1) CrPC. The mere fact that the case was adjourned for awaiting completion of one month from the date of issuance of the proclamation cannot be treated as due compliance with the statutory mandate. Section 82(1) CrPC clearly requires that the proclamation must specify a date and place for appearance of the accused, and such date must be not less than 30 clear days from the date of publication of the proclamation, which is not so in the present case. It is well settled that where the period between the date of publication of the proclamation and the date fixed for appearance is less than 30 clear days, the proclamation proceedings are vitiated and the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed offender. In such circumstances, a fresh proclamation is required to be issued and published in accordance with law. Reliance in this regard is rightly Dilbagh Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (8) RCR (Criminal) 166. -5- compliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and renders the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and Pal Singh v. The State: 1955 CriLJ Perusal of the paper book reveals that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class ordered issuance of proclamation under Section 82 CrPC on 12.11.2025 However as per the statement of executing On 11.12.2025, the case was adjourned to 12.01.2026 for appearance of accused, as the statutory period was not expired. , the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person on the ground from the date of issuance of the proclamation. This Court finds that the aforesaid procedure adopted by the learned trial Court does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 82(1) CrPC. The mere fact that the case was adjourned for awaiting completion of one month from the proclamation cannot be treated as due compliance with the statutory mandate. Section 82(1) CrPC clearly requires that the proclamation must specify a date and place for appearance of the accused, and such date must be publication of the proclamation, which It is well settled that where the period between the date of publication of the proclamation and the date fixed for appearance is less than 30 clear days, the proclamation proceedings are vitiated and the accused cannot be declared a n such circumstances, a fresh proclamation is required to be issued and published in accordance with law. Reliance in this regard is rightly Dilbagh Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (8) RCR (Criminal) 166. compliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and renders the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and Pal Singh v. The State: 1955 CriLJ Perusal of the paper book reveals that the learned Judicial Magistrate on 12.11.2025 executing On 11.12.2025, the case was adjourned to 12.01.2026 for appearance of accused, as the statutory period was not expired. On on the ground from the date of issuance of the proclamation. This Court finds that the aforesaid procedure adopted by the learned trial Court does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 82(1) CrPC. The mere fact that the case was adjourned for awaiting completion of one month from the proclamation cannot be treated as due compliance with the statutory mandate. Section 82(1) CrPC clearly requires that the proclamation must specify a date and place for appearance of the accused, and such date must be publication of the proclamation, which It is well settled that where the period between the date of publication of the proclamation and the date fixed for appearance is less than 30 clear days, the proclamation proceedings are vitiated and the accused cannot be declared a n such circumstances, a fresh proclamation is required to be issued and published in accordance with law. Reliance in this regard is rightly TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12973- 12. In the present case, the proclamat 24.11.2025. Instead of issuing a fresh proclamation after ensuring compliance with the mandatory requirement of fixing a date beyond 30 clear days from the date of publication, the learned trial Court merely adjourned the mat awaiting the presence of the accused. Such adjournment cannot cure the inherent defect in the proclamation proceedings. 13. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the essential requirements of Section 82(1) CrPC have case. Consequently, the proclamation order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person is legally unsustainable. 14. The object behind issuance of non is only to secure the prese voluntarily approached this Court and undertaken to appear before the trial Court regularly. 15. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be so that trial may resume. order dated 12.01.2026 ‘proclaimed person’, and he is surrender by him before the trial weeks from today petitioner in Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh. 16. The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner will also submit an -2026 (O&M) In the present case, the proclamat . Instead of issuing a fresh proclamation after ensuring compliance with the mandatory requirement of fixing a date beyond 30 clear days from the date of publication, the learned trial Court merely adjourned the mat awaiting the presence of the accused. Such adjournment cannot cure the inherent defect in the proclamation proceedings. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the essential requirements of Section 82(1) CrPC have not been complied with in the present case. Consequently, the proclamation order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person is legally unsustainable. The object behind issuance of non is only to secure the presence of the accused. In the present case, the petitioner has voluntarily approached this Court and undertaken to appear before the trial Court Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view petitioner can be directed to appear before the trial Court so that trial may resume. Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned 12.01.2026 is set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner as ‘proclaimed person’, and he is directed to be released on bail, in the eventuality of surrender by him before the trial Court/Duty Magistrate from today subject to payment of Rs.5000/ Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh. The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner will also submit an -6- In the present case, the proclamation was admittedly effected on . Instead of issuing a fresh proclamation after ensuring compliance with the mandatory requirement of fixing a date beyond 30 clear days from the date of publication, the learned trial Court merely adjourned the matter to 12.01.2026 awaiting the presence of the accused. Such adjournment cannot cure the inherent Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the essential not been complied with in the present case. Consequently, the proclamation order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed The object behind issuance of non-bailable warrants or proclamation nce of the accused. In the present case, the petitioner has voluntarily approached this Court and undertaken to appear before the trial Court Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view directed to appear before the trial Court/Duty Magistrate Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner as irected to be released on bail, in the eventuality of /Duty Magistrate within a period of two Rs.5000/- as costs to be deposited by Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh. The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner will also submit an ion was admittedly effected on . Instead of issuing a fresh proclamation after ensuring compliance with the mandatory requirement of fixing a date beyond 30 clear days from the date of for awaiting the presence of the accused. Such adjournment cannot cure the inherent Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the essential not been complied with in the present case. Consequently, the proclamation order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed bailable warrants or proclamation nce of the accused. In the present case, the petitioner has voluntarily approached this Court and undertaken to appear before the trial Court Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view /Duty Magistrate, Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner as irected to be released on bail, in the eventuality of two the The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner will also submit an TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12973- undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during in future and the proceedings will not be delayed because of his conduct. 17. It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court/Duty Magistrate vacated. 18. With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of. 19. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. March 10, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2026 (O&M) undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during future and the proceedings will not be delayed because of his conduct. It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial /Duty Magistrate within a stipulated period, this order shall be de With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -7- undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial future and the proceedings will not be delayed because of his conduct. It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial within a stipulated period, this order shall be deemed to be With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No the proceedings of the trial It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial emed to be All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document