CRM-M-72848 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 160 KEWAL STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P referred to as ‘impugned order’ Class Nakodar challenge in the present petition Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2. while holding a trial for the commission of o Sections 326, 72848-2025(O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH KEWAL SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Mann Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate for the complainant. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J (ORAL) The order dated 20.08.2001 referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Nakodar, hereinafter being referred to as “trial Court” challenge in the present petition filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter referred to as “ By virtue of abovementioned order, t while holding a trial for the commission of o 326, 324, 323, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-72848-2025(O&M) DECIDED ON: 12.01.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH Lakhwinder Singh Mann, Advocatefor the petitioner. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate for the complainant. (Annexure P-10), hereinafter being passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 referred to as “trial Court”, is under under Section 528 of the Bharatiya ereinafter referred to as “BNSS” only. By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under of Indian Penal Code, declared (O&M) 12.01.2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT , hereinafter being passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st is under Bharatiya he learned trial Court ffence punishable under declared the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.14 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72848 petitioner to be a proclaimed 04.10.1991 3. petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 was on bail Court on petitioner and non-bailable warrants as the petitioner had 4. issued proclamation against the petitioner 15.03.2001, the Executing Constable was not present. Thereafter, the trial Court vide order dated 19.04.2001 issued 17.07.2001. On 17.07.2001, the proclamation issued against the petitioner was duly effected, but Serving Constable was not present and the case was adjourned to 20.08.2001. Constable Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order, proclaimed offender. 5. 6. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab respondent 72848-2025(O&M) 8587 petitioner to be a proclaimed person, which led to 04.10.1991, in Police Station Shahkot, Jalandhar In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 of IPC and in was on bail, but later on when he could not Court on 06.06.2000, the learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner and issued warrant of arrest. bailable warrants were issued, however, the same the petitioner had left for a foreign country Subsequently, vide order dated 13.02.2001, learned trial Court issued proclamation against the petitioner 15.03.2001, the Executing Constable was not present. Thereafter, the trial Court vide order dated 19.04.2001 issued 17.07.2001. On 17.07.2001, the proclamation issued against the petitioner was duly effected, but Serving Constable was not present and the case was adjourned to 20.08.2001. Consequently, Constable was summoned and his statement Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order, proclaimed offender. Notice of motion. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab respondent-State, and waives service. 2 , which led to filing of FIR No.153 dated Jalandhar. shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under and in the abovementioned case, he he could not appear before the learned trial the learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the Thereafter, on various occasions, were issued, however, the same could not be executed left for a foreign country. Subsequently, vide order dated 13.02.2001, learned trial Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for 15.03.2001, however, on 15.03.2001, the Executing Constable was not present. Thereafter, the learned trial Court vide order dated 19.04.2001 issued the proclamation again, 17.07.2001. On 17.07.2001, the proclamation issued against the petitioner was duly effected, but Serving Constable was not present and the case was Consequently, on 20.08.2001, the serving his statement was recorded by the Court Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order, the petitioner was declared a Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears on behalf of dated shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under case, he appear before the learned trial the learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the Thereafter, on various occasions, could not be executed Subsequently, vide order dated 13.02.2001, learned trial Court for 15.03.2001, however, on learned for 17.07.2001. On 17.07.2001, the proclamation issued against the petitioner was duly effected, but Serving Constable was not present and the case was erving the Court. was declared a Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, appears on behalf of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.14 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72848 7. of the complainant be taken on record. 8. 9. trial Court has committed an error when without following due process, it declared the petitioner to be a contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation proclamation 19.04.2001 mandated under appearance in the Court the petitioner that even the affixation of proclamation was not as per prescribed provisions contents of the abovementioned proclamation. 10. because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. counsel for last appeared before the Court The learned State is a person 72848-2025(O&M) 8587 Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. Memorandum of Appearance has been be taken on record. Heard. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned trial Court has committed an error when without following due process, it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation issued against the petitioner is defective in view of fact that the proclamation for 17.07.2001 was issued by the le 19.04.2001. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, mandated under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was not appearance in the Court. It has also been pointed petitioner that even the affixation of proclamation was not as per prescribed provisions, as the Executing Constable contents of the abovementioned proclamation. In addition to above, it has been alleged by the petitioner th because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned State Counsel counsel for the complainant has argued that the petitioner is a person, who last appeared before the Court in the year 2000 earned State Counsel has argued that in the present c is a person who right from the very beginning 3 Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf . Memorandum of Appearance has been filed. The same It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned trial Court has committed an error when without following due process, it proclaimed person. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, against the petitioner is defective in view of fact that the was issued by the learned trial Court on . As per learned counsel for the petitioner, 30 days’ period as was not afforded to the petitioner, for . It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that even the affixation of proclamation was not as per as the Executing Constable did not publicly read the contents of the abovementioned proclamation. In addition to above, it has been alleged by the petitioner th because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender, the impugned order is , the learned State Counsel being assisted by learned has argued that the petitioner is a person, who in the year 2000 and thereafter he absconded. ounsel has argued that in the present case, the petitioner eginning was aware of the pendency of Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf The same It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned trial Court has committed an error when without following due process, it further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, against the petitioner is defective in view of fact that the arned trial Court on 30 days’ period as afforded to the petitioner, for by learned counsel for petitioner that even the affixation of proclamation was not as per not publicly read the In addition to above, it has been alleged by the petitioner that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, in declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender, the impugned order is being assisted by learned has argued that the petitioner is a person, who and thereafter he absconded. ase, the petitioner was aware of the pendency of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.14 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72848 criminal proceedings against him, and that the petitioner is the person, who, violated the condition hands and went abroad without caring for the criminal proceedings against him. not to appear before the Court, draw benefit of any technical declaring the petitioner 12. 13. record the learned trial Court, before passing the order a proclaimed offender. The statement of Executing Constable, namely Santokh Singh dated 14. (a) (b) 72848-2025(O&M) 8587 criminal proceedings against him, and that the petitioner is the person, who, violated the conditions of bail with impunity, and took the law in his own hands and went abroad without caring for the criminal proceedings against him. As per learned State Counsel, since the petitioner himself opted not to appear before the Court, and remained absent for long, draw benefit of any technical defect, which could not be declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on the copy of statement of the Executing Constable recorded by the learned trial Court, before passing the order a proclaimed offender. The statement of Executing Constable, namely Singh dated 17.07.2001 reads as under “Sir, it is kindly submitted here that I along with Chowkidar duly published the proclamation of Kewal Singh R/o Kalan. One copy was pasted in open place of the Village, Mundai was got conducted. The thumb impression of Chowkidar Boota Singh is pr accused.’ A perusal of the record further (a) that the learned trial Court proclaimed offender merely on the basis of affixation of proclamation issued for 17.07.2001, whereas as per laid down procedure, if the statement of Executing Constable could not be recorded on 17.07.2001 for next date, i.e. proclamation should have been issued; (b) that from the date of affixation of time should have been afforded to the petitioner to appear 4 criminal proceedings against him, and that the petitioner is the person, who, of bail with impunity, and took the law in his own hands and went abroad without caring for the criminal proceedings pending As per learned State Counsel, since the petitioner himself opted and remained absent for long, now he cannot , which could not be followed proclaimed offender. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on copy of statement of the Executing Constable recorded by the learned trial Court, before passing the order of declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender. The statement of Executing Constable, namely reads as under:- Sir, it is kindly submitted here that I along with Chowkidar duly published the proclamation of Kewal Singh R/o Kakkar Kalan. One copy was pasted in open place of the Village, Mundai was got conducted. The thumb impression of Chowkidar Boota Singh is present. There is no property of further shows:- the learned trial Court declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender merely on the basis of affixation of proclamation issued for 17.07.2001, whereas as per laid down procedure, if the statement of Executing Constable could not be recorded on 17.07.2001 for next date, i.e. 20.08.2001, fresh should have been issued; and from the date of affixation of proclamation at least 30 days’ time should have been afforded to the petitioner to appear criminal proceedings against him, and that the petitioner is the person, who, of bail with impunity, and took the law in his own pending As per learned State Counsel, since the petitioner himself opted now he cannot followed in A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on copy of statement of the Executing Constable recorded by the the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender. The statement of Executing Constable, namely Sir, it is kindly submitted here that I along with Chowkidar Kakkar Kalan. One copy was pasted in open place of the Village, Mundai was got conducted. The thumb impression of esent. There is no property of declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender merely on the basis of affixation of proclamation issued for 17.07.2001, whereas as per laid down procedure, if the statement of Executing Constable could not be 20.08.2001, fresh proclamation at least 30 days’ time should have been afforded to the petitioner to appear GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.14 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72848 15. Executing Constable shows the proclamation the locality where the petitioner last resided shows that me Executing Constable, the petitioner has been declared 16. Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention CrPC lays down declaring a person to be a proclaimed person: 17. it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of abovementioned provisions of Section 72848-2025(O&M) 8587 before the Court, but in the instant case, the date fixed for appearance before the Court was day, proclamation was affixed. A bare perusal of the above Executing Constable shows that the said Executing Constable did not the proclamation on the notice board of the Court at the conspicuous the locality where the petitioner last resided shows that merely on the basis of above Executing Constable, the petitioner has been declared With regard to the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be a proclaimed person: “(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such ordinarily resides; (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court (ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.” With regard to mandatory nature of above it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of abovementioned provisions of Section 5 before the Court, but in the instant case, the date fixed for appearance before the Court was 17.07.2001 and on the same day, proclamation was affixed. A bare perusal of the abovementioned statement of the that the said Executing Constable did not affix on the notice board of the Court at the conspicuous place in the locality where the petitioner last resided. The order dated 20.08.2001 rely on the basis of abovementioned statement of the Executing Constable, the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person mentioned procedure adopted by the Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention here that Section 82(2) of that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be a proclaimed person:- “(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:- (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous rt of the Court-house; the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.” rd to mandatory nature of abovementioned procedure, it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of abovementioned provisions of Section 82(2) of CrPC is mandatory in before the Court, but in the instant case, the date fixed for 17.07.2001 and on the same mentioned statement of the affix place in 20.08.2001 mentioned statement of the person. mentioned procedure adopted by the (2) of that following steps are necessary to be taken before (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place person it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such oned procedure, it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of is mandatory in GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.14 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72848 nature. It has also been held that in case the above process is not letter and spirit, the offender/proclaimed person is defective. 18. 2023(2) Law Herald 1545 is issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh proclamation should be issued. S Jarnail Singh v. St decided on 04.09.2024) and Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab (CRM 50704- 2024, decided on 28.11.2024) 19. statement of affixed at a public place in the resides, nor it was pasted on the notice board of the Court under Section 8 the above defective and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken by this High Court in the cases of Punjab 18 decided on 07.05.2024) proclamation seems to be defective. 20. time to the accused to appear before the Court after proclamation, this Court 72848-2025(O&M) 8587 nature. It has also been held that in case the above process is not letter and spirit, the impugned order declaring a person to be a proclaimed offender/proclaimed person is defective. In this regard in the case of Tirlok Chand Vs. State of Haryana 2023(2) Law Herald 1545, this High Court observed that if a procl is issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh proclamation should be issued. Similar view has been taken Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (CRM decided on 04.09.2024) and Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab (CRM 2024, decided on 28.11.2024). In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention ement of Executing Constable nowhere depicts that the proclamation was at a public place in the vicinity where the petitioner ordinarily , nor it was pasted on the notice board of the Court under Section 82(2)(i)(b) & (c) of CrPC. Thus, the abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offender is defective and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken by this High Court in the cases of Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State AIR 1955 Punjab 18 and Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (CRM decided on 07.05.2024). On this account also proclamation seems to be defective. With regard to failure of learned trial Court to give 30 days’ time to the accused to appear before the Court after proclamation, this Court 6 nature. It has also been held that in case the above process is not followed order declaring a person to be a proclaimed Tirlok Chand Vs. State of Haryana , this High Court observed that if a proclamation is issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh imilar view has been taken in the cases of ate of Punjab & Another (CRM-M-27944 of 2024, decided on 04.09.2024) and Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab (CRM- In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that the where depicts that the proclamation was vicinity where the petitioner ordinarily , nor it was pasted on the notice board of the Court, as prescribed . Thus, the impugned order declaring said person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offender is defective and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State AIR 1955 r Singh v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-21736-2024, . On this account also, the abovementioned With regard to failure of learned trial Court to give 30 days’ time to the accused to appear before the Court after proclamation, this Court followed in order declaring a person to be a proclaimed Tirlok Chand Vs. State of Haryana amation is issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh in the cases of 27944 of 2024, -M- that the where depicts that the proclamation was vicinity where the petitioner ordinarily , as prescribed r declaring said person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offender is defective and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State AIR 1955 2024, mentioned With regard to failure of learned trial Court to give 30 days’ time to the accused to appear before the Court after proclamation, this Court GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.14 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72848 in the case of 2017 has 21. abovementioned fact i.e. non-reading of summons in public place afforded to the petitioner to proclamation, hereby held to be Resultantly, the dated 20.08.2001 22. of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail has been cancelled and bonds have been forfeited to the State, the order of learned trial Court with regard to c of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the 72848-2025(O&M) 8587 in the case of ‘Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. has observed as under:- “The above quoted provision is clear that through the proclamation made prior to declaration of a person as a proclaimed offender, he should be given not less than thirty days from the date of its proclamation to appear at a specified place and a specified time. In the case in hand, thirty days were not given to the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court as the proclamation was made on 13.05.2011 requiring him to appear before the Trial Court on 14.05.2011. Thus, the proclamation and the subsequent order dated 03.09.2011 (Annexure P to be a proclaimed offender do not confirm with the mandate of Section 82 (1) of the Code. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect abovementioned factors, as there was a defect in reading of summons in public place afforded to the petitioner to appear before the Court a proclamation, the order dated 20.08.2001 by held to be perverse, defective and Resultantly, the present petition is hereby 20.08.2001 passed by the learned trial Court It is however made clear that this order is with regard to legality of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail has been cancelled and bonds have been forfeited to the State, the order of learned trial Court with regard to cancellation of bail and issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the 7 Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.’ in CRM-M-1866 oted provision is clear that through the proclamation made prior to declaration of a person as a proclaimed offender, he should be given not less than thirty days from the date of its proclamation to appear at a specified e case in hand, thirty days were not given to the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court as the proclamation was made on 13.05.2011 requiring him to appear before the Trial Court on 14.05.2011. Thus, the proclamation and the subsequent 09.2011 (Annexure P-2) declaring the petitioner do not confirm with the mandate of Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the was a defect in affixation of proclamation reading of summons in public place, and 30 days’ period was appear before the Court after affixation of 20.08.2001passed by the learned trial Court is defective and unsustainable in the eyes of law. hereby allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is hereby quashed. It is however made clear that this order is with regard to legality of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail has been cancelled and bonds have been forfeited to the State, the order of ancellation of bail and issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the 1866- oted provision is clear that through the proclamation made prior to declaration of a person as a proclaimed offender, he should be given not less than thirty days from the date of its proclamation to appear at a specified e case in hand, thirty days were not given to the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court as the proclamation was made on 13.05.2011 requiring him to appear before the Trial Court on 14.05.2011. Thus, the proclamation and the subsequent 2) declaring the petitioner do not confirm with the mandate of of the affixation of proclamation, not fter affixation of learned trial Court is of law. the impugned order It is however made clear that this order is with regard to legality of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail has been cancelled and bonds have been forfeited to the State, the order of ancellation of bail and issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.14 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72848 petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the petitioner into custod 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 Cr.P.C). However for bail, the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case within a period of seven days. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 72848-2025(O&M) 8587 petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the petitioner into custod 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 Cr.P.C). However, in case the petitioner surrenders and file the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case within a period of seven days. Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/ 8 petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the petitioner into custody or proceed under Section 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 in case the petitioner surrenders and files an application the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case within a :Yes/No : Yes/No petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court under Section 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 an application the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case within a GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.14 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document