125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA KULDIP SINGH ALIAS AMAN STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the petitioner. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This is the first petition filed under Section 528 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) dated 11.02.2025 Khadur Sahib, District Tarn Taran declared as proclaimed pe Negotiable Instruments Act 21.04.2022. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on regular bail in the present case, however, due to inadver noted the wrong date and failed to appear before the learned trial Court. Subsequently, learned trial Court vide order dated 26.07.2024, cancelled the bail of the petitioner and issued non subsequently, vide order dated, he was declared as ‘Proclaimed Person’. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner proclamation was issued against the petitioner IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH KULDIP SINGH ALIAS AMAN V/S PUNJAB AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This is the first petition filed under Section 528 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking quashing of impugned order 11.02.2025 passed by learned Sub Divisional Khadur Sahib, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P- declared as proclaimed person in a complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 bearing NACT No.27 of 2022 dated Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on regular bail in the present case, however, due to inadver noted the wrong date and failed to appear before the learned trial Court. Subsequently, learned trial Court vide order dated 26.07.2024, cancelled the bail of the petitioner and issued non-bailable warrants of his arrest and vide order dated, he was declared as ‘Proclaimed Person’. Learned counsel for the petitioner proclamation was issued against the petitioner IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-14126-2025 Date of decision: 17.03.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS HARPREET SINGH BRAR This is the first petition filed under Section 528 Bharatiya , 2023 seeking quashing of impugned order Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, -2), whereby the petitioner was a complaint filed under Section 138 of , 1881 bearing NACT No.27 of 2022 dated Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was on regular bail in the present case, however, due to inadvertent mistake, he noted the wrong date and failed to appear before the learned trial Court. Subsequently, learned trial Court vide order dated 26.07.2024, cancelled the bailable warrants of his arrest and vide order dated, he was declared as ‘Proclaimed Person’. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that without following the drill of MANISHA 2025.03.17 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-14126 Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non the entire proceedings served and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Notice of motion to respondent No.1 at this stage only. 5. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Pu Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure his presence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the record of the case with disposal. 7. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liber interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonablenes 8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself. This Court in the judgment passed in Major Singh @ Major Vs. State 2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 14126-2025 2 Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non-compliance of the mandatory the entire proceedings, which suffers from incurable illegality served and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Notice of motion to respondent No.1 at this stage only. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Pu Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure I have heard learned counsel for the record of the case with their able assistance, the matter is taken up for final While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonablenes A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself. This Court in the judgment passed in Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; 2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 has held that the Court is first required to record its compliance of the mandatory provisions vitiates which suffers from incurable illegality as he was never served and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Notice of motion to respondent No.1 at this stage only. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and supports the order passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the able assistance, the matter is taken up for final While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain ty of the individual-accused and interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself. This Court in the judgment passed in of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; has held that the Court is first required to record its MANISHA 2025.03.17 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-14126 satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order suffer illegality. In the judgment passed by this Court in 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319 Section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any non an ‘irregularity’ and renders the proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. 9. The sole purpose of issuance of non of proclamation is to secure pr petitioner, in the present case 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the ratio of law laid down in petition is allowed P-2), vide which quashed. 11. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a period of two weeks from today and on bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, along with costs of Rs.1 Pingalwara Charitable Society, Court. 12. Receipt of payment of cost must be presented before learned trial Court and learned trial Court is directed to verify the same. 14126-2025 3 satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order suffer illegality. In the judgment passed by this Court in 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319, it has been held that the con (2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a proclamation against an e mandatory. Any non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an ‘irregularity’ and renders the proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. The sole purpose of issuance of non of proclamation is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The in the present case, has himself come forward. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the ratio of law laid down in Major Singh @ Major petition is allowed qua the impugned order dated vide which, the petitioner was declared The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a weeks from today and on his doing so, he shall be admitted to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Court, along with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with Pingalwara Charitable Society, Amritsar, for wasting Receipt of payment of cost must be presented before learned trial Court and learned trial Court is directed to verify the same. satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non- recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable illegality. In the judgment passed by this Court in Sonu Vs. State of Haryana , it has been held that the conditions specified in (2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a proclamation against an compliance therewith cannot be cured as an ‘irregularity’ and renders the proclamation and proceedings subsequent The sole purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants or issuance esence of the accused before the trial Court. The himself come forward. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of Major Singh @ Major (supra), the present dated 11.02.2025 (Annexure declared as proclaimed person is The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a doing so, he shall be admitted to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the to be deposited with All India wasting precious time of the Receipt of payment of cost must be presented before learned trial Court and learned trial Court is directed to verify the same. MANISHA 2025.03.17 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-14126 13. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to appear the trial Court within a stipulated period, the interim protection granted by this Court shall be deemed to be vacated. March 17, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 14126-2025 4 It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to appear the trial Court within a stipulated period, the interim protection granted by this Court shall be deemed to be vacated. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court within a stipulated period, the interim protection granted by this HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.03.17 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment