CRM-M-68236- 130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Manvir Singh alias Malli State of Punjab and CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. V.S.Rana, Advocate and Ms. Kerrein Sharma, MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, 17.10.2023 vide which proclamation was issued against the petitioner and order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Jalandhar, whereby the petitioner has been declared 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CRM bail, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.09.2020. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation, the challan was presented on 18.09.2023. Owing to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial Court, which resulted in initiation of proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not duly served and was consequently declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 18.01.2024. It is contended th -2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : Manvir Singh alias Malli VERSUS and Another HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. V.S.Rana, Advocate and Ms. Kerrein Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, 17.10.2023 vide which proclamation was issued against the petitioner and order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate , whereby the petitioner has been declared Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CRM-M bail, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.09.2020. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation, the challan was presented on 18.09.2023. Owing to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial hich resulted in initiation of proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not duly served and was consequently declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 18.01.2024. It is contended that the mandatory requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-68236-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.01.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU Advocate for the petitioner. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing the order dated 17.10.2023 vide which proclamation was issued against the petitioner and order dicial Magistrate Ist Class, District , whereby the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had M-28296-2020 seeking anticipatory bail, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.09.2020. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation, the challan was presented on 18.09.2023. Owing to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial hich resulted in initiation of proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not duly served and was consequently declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated at the mandatory requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the for quashing the order dated 17.10.2023 vide which proclamation was issued against the petitioner and order Class, District Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had anticipatory bail, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.09.2020. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation, the challan was presented on 18.09.2023. Owing to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial hich resulted in initiation of proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not duly served and was consequently declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated at the mandatory requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.30 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-68236- (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 report of execution and the material placed on record. 4. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned orders are legally unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. 5. He further submits that the petitioner u trial Court on each and every date of hearing. 6. Notice of motion. 7. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab respondent-State. Mr. Mohit Saini, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. They petitioner deliberately avoided appearance, leaving the trial Court with no option but to issue proclamation to secure his presence. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. A co "Anita Sharma v. State of Punjab ", date of decision 26.03.2021 the essential requirements of Section "(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 person concerned. (See 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 conceali himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against -2025 (O&M) (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. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned orders are legally unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. He further submits that the petitioner u trial Court on each and every date of hearing. Notice of motion. Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab State. Mr. Mohit Saini, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. They support the impugned order, contending that the petitioner deliberately avoided appearance, leaving the trial Court with no option to issue proclamation to secure his presence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 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: "(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 person concerned. (See 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 conceali himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against -2- (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 . Such satisfaction must be based upon the report of execution and the material placed on record. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned orders are legally He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of State. Mr. Mohit Saini, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf support the impugned order, contending that the petitioner deliberately avoided appearance, leaving the trial Court with no option to issue proclamation to secure his presence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties 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:- "(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 conceali himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against (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 . Such satisfaction must be based upon the Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned orders are legally ndertakes to appear before the e on behalf of State. Mr. Mohit Saini, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf support the impugned order, contending that the petitioner deliberately avoided appearance, leaving the trial Court with no option 2021 titled , has summarized is sine qua non has to Rohit 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 TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.30 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-68236- 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 s that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence. (See Emperor: AIR 1943 Patna 366 U.P.: 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783 (iv) The requis 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/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published again. (Se 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 -2025 (O&M) 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 s that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, 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/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published again. (Se 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) -3- 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 s 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). ite 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 is not bound to take evidence in this regard (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 that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, Bishundayal Mahton and others v. Devender Singh Negi v. State of ite 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 rappaGugal 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, the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the Dilbagh and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.30 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-68236- (vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in Section 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 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 subclauses (a) and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. (See W.B.: 1973 CriLJ 1368 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 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 regard proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also required to be published in the newspaper. -2025 (O&M) (vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in Section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C. For publication, the proclamation has to 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 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 subclauses (a)-(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 publication are proved. (See Pawan Kumar Gupta v. The State of W.B.: 1973 CriLJ 1368). Where 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 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 will be required where the proclamation is also required to be published in the newspaper. -4- (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 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 ction 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 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 Court-house and report ing 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. (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 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 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 house. The three ction 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 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 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 house and report ing publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.30 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-68236- (vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the as to the Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965 viii) The writing in its specified day in a manner spe 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 (xi) The conditions specified in Section publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any non and renders the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See another 1994 CriLJ 1783 318 10. Perusal of the paper book reveals that vide order dated non-bailable warrants issued against the accused were not received back. Consequently, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class ordered issuance of proclamation under Section 82 CrPC ag as per the statement of serving constable, it was effected on 01.11.2023 for 20.11.2023. -2025 (O&M) (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. Any non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an and renders the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. (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 vide order dated bailable warrants issued against the accused were not received back. Consequently, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class ordered issuance of proclamation under Section 82 CrPC against the accused for as per the statement of serving constable, it was effected on 01.11.2023 for -5- (vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the Court date and mode of publication of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965). issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in that the proclamation was duly published on a cified 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. 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 vide order dated 17.10.2023 bailable warrants issued against the accused were not received back. Consequently, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class ordered issuance of ainst the accused for 20.11.2023. However as per the statement of serving constable, it was effected on 01.11.2023 for Court 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 cified in Section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C.. is 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. '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 17.10.2023, bailable warrants issued against the accused were not received back. Consequently, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class ordered issuance of However as per the statement of serving constable, it was effected on 01.11.2023 for TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.30 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-68236- 11. On offender on the ground that a period of 30 days had elap issuance of the proclamation. 12. 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 awaiti 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, not less than 30 clear days from the date of is not so in the present case. 13. It is well settled that where the period between the date of publication of the proclamation and the date fixed 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. Relian placed upon Dilbagh Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (8) RCR (Criminal) 166. 14. In the present case, the proclamation was admittedly effected on 01.11.2023. Instead of issuing a fresh proclamation after ensuring compliance wit 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 awaiting the presence of the accused. Such adjournment cannot cure the inherent defect in the proclamation proceedings. 15. 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 -2025 (O&M) On 18.01.2024, itself, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender on the ground that a period of 30 days had elap 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 awaiti 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, 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. Relian placed upon Dilbagh Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (8) RCR (Criminal) 166. In the present case, the proclamation was admittedly effected on . Instead of issuing a fresh proclamation after ensuring compliance wit 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 awaiting the presence of the accused. Such adjournment cannot cure the inherent 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 -6- , the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender on the ground that a period of 30 days had elapsed from the date of 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 publication of the proclamation, which It is well settled that where the period between the date of publication 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 placed upon Dilbagh Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (8) RCR (Criminal) 166. In the present case, the proclamation was admittedly effected on . Instead of issuing a fresh proclamation after ensuring compliance wit 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 18.01.2024 awaiting the presence of the accused. Such adjournment cannot cure the inherent 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 , the petitioner was declared a proclaimed sed from the date of 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 ng 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 and such date must be publication of the proclamation, which It is well settled that where the period between the date of publication 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 ce in this regard is rightly 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 for awaiting the presence of the accused. Such adjournment cannot cure the inherent 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 TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.30 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-68236- case. Consequently, the proclamation order declaring the petitioner as a person is legally unsustainable. 16. 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 regularly. 17. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be directed to appear before the trial Court, so that trial may resume. Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accep 17.10.2023 and 18.01.2024 ‘proclaimed person’, and he is surrender by him before the trial be deposited by Chandigarh. 18. The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner will also submit undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial in future and the proceedings will not be delayed because of his conduct. 19. It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court within a stipulated period, this order shall be deemed to be vacated. 20. With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of. 21. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. January 28, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2025 (O&M) case. Consequently, the proclamation order declaring the petitioner as a 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 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 Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accep 17.10.2023 and 18.01.2024 are 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 subject to payment be deposited by the petitioner in Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner will also submit 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 a stipulated period, this order shall be deemed to be vacated. With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 6 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -7- case. Consequently, the proclamation order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed The object behind issuance of non-bailable warrants or proclamation 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 Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned orders dated set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner as directed to be released on bail, in the eventuality of Court subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs to Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner will also submit 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 a stipulated period, this order shall be deemed to be vacated. With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No proclaimed bailable warrants or proclamation is only to secure the presence of the accused. In the present case, the petitioner has 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 dated set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner as directed to be released on bail, in the eventuality of as costs to Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner will also submit an undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.30 17:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document