CRM-M-18776 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 137 Shubhdeep Singh Grewal State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. CRM-17192 2. CRM-M 528 of Bhar quashing of order dated learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sukhwinder under Sections District Ludhiana offender. 3. grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in 18776-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Shubhdeep Singh Grewal Versus Punjab and another CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Himani Arora, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 17192-2025 Allowed as prayed for. Documents are taken on record. M-18776-2025 (O&M) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 quashing of order dated 18.04.2011 (Annexure P Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sukhwinder Singh, arising out of FIR No. under Sections 341, 323, 324, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Raikot, ict Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned case -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18776-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.05.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Ms. Himani Arora, AAG, Punjab. Documents are taken on record. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section tiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (Annexure P-1), passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagraon in case titled as State vs. , arising out of FIR No. 195 dated 08.11.2007, registered 341, 323, 324, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Raikot, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been case. It is a case of version and cross - 2025 (O&M) 07.05.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondents The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section (for short ‘BNSS’) for Court of State vs. , registered 341, 323, 324, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Raikot, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been It is a case of version and cross MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.08 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18776 version. The accused persons implicated in cross version, which was registered on the statement of the present petitioner, have been acquitted. further argued that accused but the petitioner was kept in Column No. 2. application moved by the public prosecutor, non against the petitioner wrongly kept in Column No. 2 offender. The accused the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 05.07.2011. petitioner could not a notice/warrants issued by the been declared a proclaimed prescribed under Section 82 order is liable to be set aside. 4. has resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner has rightly offender as he was running away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. and have also gone through the ma 6. learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed by the learned 82 of Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a 18776-2025 (O&M) . The accused persons implicated in cross version, which was registered on the statement of the present petitioner, have been acquitted. further argued that challan in the aforesaid FIR was presented against the co accused but the petitioner was kept in Column No. 2. application moved by the public prosecutor, non against the petitioner by the Court concerned by observing wrongly kept in Column No. 2 and he was ultimately declared a proclaimed offender. The accused, who faced the full length trial, the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 05.07.2011. petitioner could not appear before the Court as he was notice/warrants issued by the learned trial Court. More so, t been declared a proclaimed offender without prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. Hence, it is urged that the order is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned Senior Assistant has resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner has rightly as he was running away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the and have also gone through the material placed on record. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed learned trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a -2- . The accused persons implicated in cross version, which was registered on the statement of the present petitioner, have been acquitted. in the aforesaid FIR was presented against the co accused but the petitioner was kept in Column No. 2. However, on an application moved by the public prosecutor, non-bailable warrants were issued by the Court concerned by observing that he was and he was ultimately declared a proclaimed , who faced the full length trial, have been acquitted by the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 05.07.2011. However, the Court as he was never served with any trial Court. More so, the petitioner had without following the proper procedure Hence, it is urged that the impugned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner has rightly been declared a proclaimed as he was running away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length terial placed on record. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a - . The accused persons implicated in cross version, which was It is in the aforesaid FIR was presented against the co- However, on an bailable warrants were issued that he was and he was ultimately declared a proclaimed have been acquitted by However, the never served with any he petitioner had following the proper procedure impugned Advocate General, Punjab has resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the been declared a proclaimed as he was running away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged at considerable length On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.08 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18776 proclaimed dated 18.04.2011 with all the consequential procee 7. copies of zim 10.02.2011 received back unserved, proclamation against that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its proper was concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance upon Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 8. the proclamation was executed on 05.03.2011 cause his appearance before the means that the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to cause his appearance before the learned trial Court. Hence, the same was in clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less than 30 days is required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandatory in nature. Reliance in this regard can be State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. 18776-2025 (O&M) proclaimed offender, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order 18.04.2011 suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. After going through the material placed on reco copies of zimni orders passed by the learned 10.02.2011, since the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were eceived back unserved, the learned trial Court had ordered for issuance of proclamation against him for 18.03.2011. that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its proper satisfaction that that the petitioner had absconded or was concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. Further, a perusal of the impugned order itself would reveal that the proclamation was executed on 05.03.2011 cause his appearance before the learned means that the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to cause his appearance before the learned trial Court. Hence, the same was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less than 30 days is required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandatory in nature. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. -3- , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed dings arising therefrom. After going through the material placed on record as well as the learned trial Court, it is revealed that on bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were trial Court had ordered for issuance of . A bare perusal of this order shows that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has that the petitioner had absconded or was concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance in this regard can be placed Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561. Further, a perusal of the impugned order itself would reveal that the proclamation was executed on 05.03.2011, requiring the petitioner to learned trial Court on 08.03.2011, which means that the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to cause his appearance before the learned trial Court. Hence, the same was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less than 30 days is required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandatory in nature. placed upon Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : - , I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed rd as well as the revealed that on bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were trial Court had ordered for issuance of A bare perusal of this order shows that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has that the petitioner had absconded or was concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the in this regard can be placed Further, a perusal of the impugned order itself would reveal that requiring the petitioner to which means that the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to cause his appearance before the learned trial Court. Hence, the same was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less than 30 days is required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandatory in nature. Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.08 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18776 9. view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities petition is allowed and the impugned order dated passed by the titled as State vs. 08.11.2007, registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana, declared a proclaimed arising therefrom. 10. concerned within a period of four weeks, subject to order for grant of anticipatory bail, if any passed on his petition to be filed u BNSS. In the absence of any order for grant of anticipatory bail and on such surrender, the petitioner shall be liable to be remanded to judicial custody subject to any order for grant of regular bail to be passed by the concerned Court in accordance with law. 11. the concerned Court for grant of regular bail, then the concerned Court shall be bound to dispose of the same expeditiously and that nothing in this order shall be treated as expression of any opinion on merits so as to bind or influence the concerned Court in disposal of the same. 12. Court, his arrest 18776-2025 (O&M) Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities petition is allowed and the impugned order dated passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, State vs. Sukhwinder Singh, arising out of FIR No. 195 dated 08.11.2007, registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana, declared a proclaimed offender, is quashed wi arising therefrom. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court concerned within a period of four weeks, subject to order for grant of anticipatory bail, if any passed on his petition to be filed u BNSS. In the absence of any order for grant of anticipatory bail and on such surrender, the petitioner shall be liable to be remanded to judicial custody subject to any order for grant of regular bail to be passed by the concerned in accordance with law. Needless to observe that in case any application is filed before the concerned Court for grant of regular bail, then the concerned Court shall be bound to dispose of the same expeditiously and that nothing in this order be treated as expression of any opinion on merits so as to bind or influence the concerned Court in disposal of the same. Till the appearance of the petitioner before the Court, his arrest shall remain stayed. -4- Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above and also in view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.04.2011 (Annexure P Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagraon in case , arising out of FIR No. 195 dated 08.11.2007, registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner had been , is quashed with all consequential proceedings However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court concerned within a period of four weeks, subject to order for grant of anticipatory bail, if any passed on his petition to be filed under Section 483 of BNSS. In the absence of any order for grant of anticipatory bail and on such surrender, the petitioner shall be liable to be remanded to judicial custody subject to any order for grant of regular bail to be passed by the concerned Needless to observe that in case any application is filed before the concerned Court for grant of regular bail, then the concerned Court shall be bound to dispose of the same expeditiously and that nothing in this order be treated as expression of any opinion on merits so as to bind or influence the concerned Court in disposal of the same. Till the appearance of the petitioner before the learned - and also in , the present 18.04.2011 (Annexure P-1), case , arising out of FIR No. 195 dated 08.11.2007, registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 148 and 149 of IPC at whereby the petitioner had been th all consequential proceedings However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court concerned within a period of four weeks, subject to order for grant of nder Section 483 of BNSS. In the absence of any order for grant of anticipatory bail and on such surrender, the petitioner shall be liable to be remanded to judicial custody subject to any order for grant of regular bail to be passed by the concerned Needless to observe that in case any application is filed before the concerned Court for grant of regular bail, then the concerned Court shall be bound to dispose of the same expeditiously and that nothing in this order be treated as expression of any opinion on merits so as to bind or learned trial MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.08 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18776 13. the learned to be dismissed. 07.05.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 18776-2025 (O&M) It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before learned trial Court within the stipulated time to be dismissed. 07.05.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -5- It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before the stipulated time, this petition shall be deemed (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No - It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before , this petition shall be deemed MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.08 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document