CRM-M-43951 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 104-II RAJVEER SINGH @RAJBIR STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P referred to as ‘impugned order’ Judge Ferozepur challenge in the present petition Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2. while holding a trial for the commission of o Sections 307/34 of declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed 4. petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of IPC and Sections 25/27/30 of Arms Act 43951-2025 (O&M) 8587 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH RAJVEER SINGH @RAJBIR SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate for Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (ORAL) The order dated 02.07.2014 referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned Judge Ferozepur, 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 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27/30 of Arms Act the petitioner to be a proclaimed In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of IPC and Sections 25/27/30 of Arms Act 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-43951-2025 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 18.02.2026 @RAJA .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH for the petitioner. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. (Annexure P-12), hereinafter being passed by the learned Additional Sessions 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 and Sections 25/27/30 of Arms Act the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of IPC and Sections 25/27/30 of Arms Act and in the (O&M) .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENTS , hereinafter being Additional Sessions is under Bharatiya he learned trial Court, ffence punishable under and Sections 25/27/30 of Arms Act, shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under in the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.19 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43951 abovementioned case before the learned trial Court on 01.05.2013, the learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner and is on various occasions, non could not be executed as the petitioner had left destination 5. Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for vide order dated received back duly effected and the learned trial Court adjourned the case for 03.06.2014 fo vide order dated and the case was adjourned for 02.07.2014 for appearance of petitioner. Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order, the pe proclaimed offender. 6. 7. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab respondent with. 8. 9. trial Court has committed an error declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. 43951-2025 (O&M) 8587 abovementioned case, he was on bail, but later on when he could not appear before the learned trial Court on 01.05.2013, the learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner and is on various occasions, non-bailable warrants were issued, however, the same could not be executed as the petitioner had left destination. Subsequently, vide order dated Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for vide order dated 20.05.2014, proclamation issued against the petitioner received back duly effected and the learned trial Court adjourned the case for 03.06.2014 for recording of statement of executing Constable. vide order dated 03.06.2014, statement of executing Constable was recorded and the case was adjourned for 02.07.2014 for appearance of petitioner. Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order, the pe proclaimed offender. Notice of motion. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab respondent-State. Hence service of notice 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. 2 , he was on bail, but later on when he could not appear before the learned trial Court on 01.05.2013, the learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner and issued warrant of arrest. Thereafter, bailable warrants were issued, however, the same could not be executed as the petitioner had left the country for a foreign Subsequently, vide order dated 05.05.2014, the learned trial Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for 20.05.2014. Thereafter, 20.05.2014, proclamation issued against the petitioner received back duly effected and the learned trial Court adjourned the case for r recording of statement of executing Constable. Subsequently 03.06.2014, statement of executing Constable was recorded and the case was adjourned for 02.07.2014 for appearance of petitioner. Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order, the petitioner was declared Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears on behalf of Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned when without following due process, it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. It has been further , he was on bail, but later on when he could not appear before the learned trial Court on 01.05.2013, the learned trial Court sued warrant of arrest. Thereafter, bailable warrants were issued, however, the same for a foreign learned trial . Thereafter, 20.05.2014, proclamation issued against the petitioner received back duly effected and the learned trial Court adjourned the case for Subsequently 03.06.2014, statement of executing Constable was recorded and the case was adjourned for 02.07.2014 for appearance of petitioner. titioner was declared a Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, on behalf of is hereby dispensed It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned when without following due process, it further GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.19 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43951 contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation the proclamation 05.05.2014 prescribed appearance in the Court the petitioner that learned trial Court against the petitioner and only on the basis of previous proclamation, which was issued on 05.05.2014, the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender. 10. that 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. 12. 43951-2025 (O&M) 8587 contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation issued against the petitioner is defective in view of the proclamation for 20.05.2014 was issued by the le 05.05.2014. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was not appearance in the Court. It has also been pointed the petitioner that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court against the petitioner and only on the basis of previous proclamation, which was issued on 05.05.2014, the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender. In addition to above, it has that 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 Cou The record has been perused carefully. 3 contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, against the petitioner is defective in view of the fact that was issued by the learned trial Court on . As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the period of 30 days was not afforded to the petitioner, for . It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court against the petitioner and only on the basis of previous proclamation, which was issued on 05.05.2014, the petitioner has been also been alleged by the petitioner that 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 The record has been perused carefully. contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, fact that arned trial Court on 30 days afforded to the petitioner, for by learned counsel for this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court against the petitioner and only on the basis of previous proclamation, which was issued on 05.05.2014, the petitioner has been 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.19 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43951 13. record the learned trial Court, before passing the order a proclaimed offender. The statement of Exe Singh dated 14. (a) (b) 43951-2025 (O&M) 8587 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 Exe dated 03.06.2014 reads as under:- “In the present case I was marked proclamation pertaining to Rajbir Singh @Raja son of Baldev Singh r/o Itta Wali, PS Ghall Khurd. The said proclamation is Ex.PA. It was marked to me SHO on 18.05.2014. On 19.05.2014, I went to the concerned area and pasted one copy of proclamation on the main gate of the house of Rajbir Singh, one copy was pasted at the common place and one copy was given to Granthi of Gurdawara Sahib and was deputed to make announcement on the speaker. Report in this regard is Ex.PB. Proclamation is Ex.PA.’ A perusal of record further shows (a) that the learned trial Court proclaimed offender on the basis of affixation of proclamation issued for appearance on 20.05.2014 procedure, if the statement of Executing Constable recorded on 03.06.2014 and declared a proclaimed offender, next date, i.e. for 02.07.2014 02.07.2014 should have been issued; (b) that from the date of affixation of time should have been afforded to the petitioner to appear before the Court, but in the instant case, the date fixed for appearance before the Court was of serving Constable, the 19.05.2014; and 4 erusal 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 Rattan In the present case I was marked proclamation pertaining to Rajbir Singh @Raja son of Baldev Singh r/o Itta Wali, PS Ghall The said proclamation is Ex.PA. It was marked to me SHO on 18.05.2014. On 19.05.2014, I went to the concerned area and pasted one copy of proclamation on the main gate of the house of Rajbir Singh, one copy was pasted at the common place and one copy was given to Granthi of Gurdawara Sahib d to make announcement on the speaker. Report in this regard is Ex.PB. Proclamation is Ex.PA.’ shows:- the learned trial Court declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender on the basis of affixation of proclamation 20.05.2014, whereas as per laid down procedure, if the statement of Executing Constable was and on that day the accused was not declared a proclaimed offender, and case was adjourned 02.07.2014, a fresh proclamation should have been issued; from the date of affixation of proclamation at least 30 days’ time should have been afforded to the petitioner to appear before the Court, but in the instant case, the date fixed for appearance before the Court was 20.05.2014 and as per report of serving Constable, the proclamation was affixed erusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on copy of statement of the Executing Constable recorded by the the petitioner to be Rattan In the present case I was marked proclamation pertaining to Rajbir Singh @Raja son of Baldev Singh r/o Itta Wali, PS Ghall The said proclamation is Ex.PA. It was marked to me by SHO on 18.05.2014. On 19.05.2014, I went to the concerned area and pasted one copy of proclamation on the main gate of the house of Rajbir Singh, one copy was pasted at the common place and one copy was given to Granthi of Gurdawara Sahib d to make announcement on the speaker. Report declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender on the basis of affixation of proclamation , whereas as per laid down was on that day the accused was not and case was adjourned for fresh proclamation for days’ time should have been afforded to the petitioner to appear before the Court, but in the instant case, the date fixed for as per report on GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.19 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43951 (c) 15. Executing Constable shows that the above not publicly read the contents of 02.07.2014 statement of the Execu proclaimed 16. learned trial Court down that following steps are necessary person to be a proclaimed person: 17. it has been repeatedly abovementioned provisions of Section 43951-2025 (O&M) 8587 (c) that the statement of Executing Constable 19.05.2014 shows that he had not publicly read the abovementioned proclamation A bare perusal of the above Executing Constable shows that the above not publicly read the contents of the 02.07.2014 further shows that merely on the basis of above statement of the Executing Constable, the petitioner has been declared proclaimed person. With regard to the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, it is relevant to mention down that following steps are necessary 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; (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 82(2) of 5 that the statement of Executing Constable Rattan Singh dated shows that he had not publicly read the abovementioned proclamation. A bare perusal of the abovementioned statement of the Executing Constable shows that the above-named Executing Constable had the proclamation. The order dated rely on the basis of abovementioned ting Constable, the petitioner has been declared mentioned procedure adopted by the , it is relevant to mention that Section 82(2) of CrPC lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a “(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; l 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 part of the Court-house; 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, observed by this Court, that the compliance of (2) of CrPC is mandatory in nature. dated shows that he had not publicly read the mentioned statement of the named Executing Constable had proclamation. The order dated mentioned ting Constable, the petitioner has been declared a mentioned procedure adopted by the lays to be taken before declaring a (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person l 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 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 mentioned procedure, observed by this Court, that the compliance of is mandatory in nature. GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.19 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43951 It has also been held that in case the above process is not and spirit, the offender/proclaimed person is defective. 18. 2023(2) Law Herald 1545 issued for appearance o that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh proclamation should be issued. S ‘Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Another decided on 04.09.2024) and 50704- 2024, decided on 28.11.2024) 19. time to the accused to appear before the Court after proc in the case of ‘ 2017 has observed as under: 43951-2025 (O&M) 8587 It has also been held that in case the above process is not and spirit, the impugned order declaring a person to be a proclaimed offender/proclaimed person is defective. In this regard in the case of ‘ 2023(2) Law Herald 1545, 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 proclamation should be issued. Similar view has been taken Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Another decided on 04.09.2024) and ‘Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab 2024, decided on 28.11.2024). With regard to failure of learned trial Court to give 30 days’ time to the accused to appear before the Court after proc in the case of ‘Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.’ in CRM 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. 6 It has also been held that in case the above process is not followed in letter order declaring a person to be a proclaimed ‘Tirlok Chand Vs. State of Haryana , this High Court observed that if a proclamation is f 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 Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Another’ (CRM-M-27944 of 2024, Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab’ (CRM- 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 Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.’ in CRM-M-1866 “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 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 der dated 03.09.2011 (Annexure P-2) declaring the petitioner der do not confirm with the mandate of in letter order declaring a person to be a proclaimed Tirlok Chand Vs. State of Haryana’ , this High Court observed that if a proclamation is f 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- With regard to failure of learned trial Court to give 30 days’ lamation, this Court 1866- “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 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 tioner der do not confirm with the mandate of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.19 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-43951 20. abovementioned proclamation 30 days’ period to the petitioner to proclamation, hereby held to be perverse, Resultantly, the present petition is hereby dated 02.07.2014 21. of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail had been cancelled and bonds learned trial Court with regard to cancellation of bail and issuan of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court weeks from today petitioner i Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 Cr.P.C) However, the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in of three days. 22. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 43951-2025 (O&M) 8587 Taking into consideration the cumulative effect abovementioned observations, as there proclamation, i.e. non-reading of summons in public place 30 days’ period to the petitioner to appear before the Court a proclamation, the order dated 02.07.2014 hereby held to be perverse, defective and Resultantly, the present petition is hereby 02.07.2014 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 been cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the State, the order of learned trial Court with regard to cancellation of bail and issuan of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court weeks from today, 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 Cr.P.C) , in case the petitioner surrenders and file the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in days. Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 7 Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the , as there was a defect in affixation of reading of summons in public place, and not affording appear before the Court after affixation of passed by the learned trial Court defective and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Resultantly, the present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is hereby quashed. that this order is with regard to legality of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail 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 petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court within a period of two , the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the under Section 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 Cr.P.C), as per law in case the petitioner surrenders and files an application for bail the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case not beyond the period :Yes/No : Yes/No of the defect in affixation of not affording fter affixation of learned trial Court is of law. and the impugned order that this order is with regard to legality of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail forfeited to the State, the order of ce of warrant of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the within a period of two , the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the under Section 491 of the Bharatiya , as per law. an application for bail, period GAURAV THAKUR 2026.02.19 15:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document