CRM-M-12611- 161 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Manga Singh State of Punjab CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. M.S.Hundal MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha quashing the impugned order dated declared as a proclaimed person in Section 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 42/52 Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted bail vid aforementioned FIR. Thereafter the petitioner was regularly appearing before the trial Court, however on 04.01.2025, the petitioner failed to appear due to miscommunication with his counsel cancelled and bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited to the State. Consquently, non 23.01.2025, proclamation was issued against the petitioner and thereaf 14.02.2025, it was observed that proclamation is effected on 13.02.2025 and the case was adjourned to 17.03.2025 for recording of statement of serving official. -2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. M.S.Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C) quashing the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 as a proclaimed person in FIR No.320, dated 27.08.2021 registered under Section 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 42/52 Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 04.07.2023 by the learned trial Court in the aforementioned FIR. Thereafter the petitioner was regularly appearing before the trial Court, however on 04.01.2025, the petitioner failed to appear due to miscommunication with his counsel. Due to his non cancelled and bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited to the State. Consquently, non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. On 23.01.2025, proclamation was issued against the petitioner and thereaf 14.02.2025, it was observed that proclamation is effected on 13.02.2025 and the case was adjourned to 17.03.2025 for recording of statement of serving official. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12611-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.03.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C), vide which the petitioner has been FIR No.320, dated 27.08.2021 registered under Section 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 42/52-A of Prisons Act Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was e order dated 04.07.2023 by the learned trial Court in the aforementioned FIR. Thereafter the petitioner was regularly appearing before the trial Court, however on 04.01.2025, the petitioner failed to appear due to his non-appearance his bail order was cancelled and bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited to the State. bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. On 23.01.2025, proclamation was issued against the petitioner and thereafter on 14.02.2025, it was observed that proclamation is effected on 13.02.2025 and the case was adjourned to 17.03.2025 for recording of statement of serving official. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the , for vide which the petitioner has been FIR No.320, dated 27.08.2021 registered under A of Prisons Act at Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was e order dated 04.07.2023 by the learned trial Court in the aforementioned FIR. Thereafter the petitioner was regularly appearing before the trial Court, however on 04.01.2025, the petitioner failed to appear due to appearance his bail order was cancelled and bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited to the State. bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. On ter on 14.02.2025, it was observed that proclamation is effected on 13.02.2025 and the case was adjourned to 17.03.2025 for recording of statement of serving official. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12611- Ultimately on 17.03.2025, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender observing that mandatory period of 30 days has been elapsed effecting of proclamation. 3. Learned counsel further submits that contained under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C, the petitioner could not have been decla as ‘proclaimed offender’, but could only be declared as ‘proclaimed person’ further submits that declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated the mandatory requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. (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 satisfact material placed on record. 4. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. 5. He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appea trial Court on each and every date of hearing. 6. Notice of motion. 7. Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State deliberately avoided proclamation to secure his presence 8. I have heard learned counsel for the 9. In the present case, the main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner involve interpretation of provisions of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C and same is reproduced as below: -2026 (O&M) Ultimately on 17.03.2025, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender observing that mandatory period of 30 days has been elapsed effecting of proclamation. Learned counsel further submits that contained under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C, the petitioner could not have been decla as ‘proclaimed offender’, but could only be declared as ‘proclaimed person’ further submits that the petitioner was not duly served and was consequently declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. (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 unsustainable and are liable to be set aside. He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appea trial Court on each and every date of hearing. Notice of motion. Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State and supports the impugned order, contending that the petitioner deliberately avoided appearance, leaving the trial Court with no option but to issue proclamation to secure his presence I have heard learned counsel for the In the present case, the main contention raised on behalf of the involve interpretation of provisions of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C and same is reproduced as below:- -2- Ultimately on 17.03.2025, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender observing that mandatory period of 30 days has been elapsed from the date of Learned counsel further submits that in view of the provisions contained under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C, the petitioner could not have been decla as ‘proclaimed offender’, but could only be declared as ‘proclaimed person’. He the petitioner was not duly served and was consequently declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 17.03.2025. It is contended that requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. (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 ion must be based upon the report of execution and the Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order is legally He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the and supports the impugned order, contending that the petitioner appearance, leaving the trial Court with no option but to issue I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In the present case, the main contention raised on behalf of the involve interpretation of provisions of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C and same Ultimately on 17.03.2025, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender by from the date of in view of the provisions contained under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C, the petitioner could not have been declared . He the petitioner was not duly served and was consequently . It is contended that requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. (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 ion must be based upon the report of execution and the legally r before the Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the and supports the impugned order, contending that the petitioner appearance, leaving the trial Court with no option but to issue and perused the record. In the present case, the main contention raised on behalf of the involve interpretation of provisions of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C and same TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12611- [4. respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under section 302 402 such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to th 5. declaration made by the Court under Sub the proclamation published under Sub 10. Finally, it has been argued that the petitioner has been wrongly declared to be a proclaimed offender in the present case. As per Section 82(4) Cr.P.C where a proclamation published under Sub Section 1 is in respect of a person/accused of an offence punis 392, 393, 394, 395 and such person fails to appear at a specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may after making such enquiry as it thinks fit pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. In the pres case, the present petitioner was being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of NDPS and said offences do not find mention in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. 11. This Court finds sufficient force in the submissions made counsel for the petitioner in this regard. It has been held by 34328-2011 (O&M) titled as “ being done in respect of a person issued and who has been either evade the execution -2026 (O&M) Where a proclamation published under Sub respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under section 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. The provisions of Sub-Sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under Sub the proclamation published under Sub Finally, it has been argued that the petitioner has been wrongly declared to be a proclaimed offender in the present case. As per Section 82(4) Cr.P.C where a proclamation published under Sub Section 1 is in respect of a person/accused of an offence punishable under Sections 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402 and such person fails to appear at a specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may after making such enquiry as it thinks fit pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. In the pres case, the present petitioner was being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of NDPS and said offences do not find mention in Section This Court finds sufficient force in the submissions made counsel for the petitioner in this regard. It has been held by 2011 (O&M) titled as “Rahul Dutta Vs. State of Haryana” Till the amendment by Act No.25 of 2005, proclamation being done in respect of a person issued and who has been either absconding or concealing himself to evade the execution of warrants but by way of Act No.25 of 2005, in -3- Where a proclamation published under Sub-Section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under section , 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a Sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under Sub-Section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under Sub-Section(1)]” Finally, it has been argued that the petitioner has been wrongly declared to be a proclaimed offender in the present case. As per Section 82(4) Cr.P.C where a proclamation published under Sub Section 1 is in respect of a hable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the IPC and such person fails to appear at a specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may after making such enquiry as it thinks fit pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. In the pres case, the present petitioner was being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of NDPS and said offences do not find mention in Section This Court finds sufficient force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. It has been held by this Court in CRM- Vs. State of Haryana” as follows:- Till the amendment by Act No.25 of 2005, proclamation was being done in respect of a person against whom a warrant has been absconding or concealing himself to of warrants but by way of Act No.25 of 2005, in Section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under section 400, of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a Sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a Section (4) as they apply to Finally, it has been argued that the petitioner has been wrongly declared to be a proclaimed offender in the present case. As per Section 82(4) Cr.P.C where a proclamation published under Sub Section 1 is in respect of a 382, of the IPC and such person fails to appear at a specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may after making such enquiry as it thinks fit pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. In the present case, the present petitioner was being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of NDPS and said offences do not find mention in Section by learned -M- - was warrant has been absconding or concealing himself to of warrants but by way of Act No.25 of 2005, in TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12611- consonance with Section 40(2)(ii), sub Section 82 Cr.P.C. recurring nature. All the persons, who are absconding or themselves to evade execution of warrants of proclaimed persons but they could be offender” on in Section proclaimed person and a proclaimed offender and for there is a difference of punishment provided as it with fine or with terms of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. and the imprisonment extend upto seven years and also with fine in is declared a “proclaimed in Section 40(2)(ii) Cr.P.C. and have found 457 IPC are not mentioned in 364, 367, 400 and Learned 86 Cr.P.C. deal with the proclaimed person and procedure with regard to the deal with a offender opinion that the terms “proclaimed person” offender” have different execution of warrants of the IPC declared to be a proclaimed offender and the persons provisi proclaimed person in terms of -2026 (O&M) consonance with Section 40(2)(ii), sub Section 82 Cr.P.C. The offences mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. are of recurring nature. All the persons, who are absconding or themselves to evade execution of warrants of proclaimed persons but they could be offender” only under the provisions of the IPC which are mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. There is stark distinction between a proclaimed person and a proclaimed offender and for there is a difference of punishment provided as it provides imprisonment which may extend upto three years or with fine or with both regarding a person who has been proclaimed in terms of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. and the imprisonment extend upto seven years and also with fine in is declared a “proclaimed offender” under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. I have also minutely examined those sections of IPC in Section 40(2)(ii) Cr.P.C. and have found 457 IPC are not mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C., 364, 367, 400 and 459 IPC are additionally mentioned therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that Sections 86 Cr.P.C. deal with the proclaimed person and procedure with regard to the attachment o deal with a person who has been declared to be a “proclaimed offender. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the terms “proclaimed person” offender” have different connotations. execution of warrants of arrest issued under the particular Sections of the IPC which are mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C., can only declared to be a proclaimed offender and the persons provisions of the IPC and the laws, can proclaimed person in terms of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C.” -4- consonance with Section 40(2)(ii), sub-section (4) ismade a part of he offences mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. are of recurring nature. All the persons, who are absconding or concealing themselves to evade execution of warrants of arrest, could be proclaimed persons but they could be declared a “proclaimed provisions of the IPC which are mentioned 82(4) Cr.P.C. There is stark distinction between a proclaimed person and a proclaimed offender and for that reason, there is a difference of punishment provided under Section 174-A IPC which may extend upto three years or both regarding a person who has been proclaimed in terms of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. and the imprisonment which may extend upto seven years and also with fine in respect of a person who offender” under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. I have also minutely examined those sections of IPC mentioned in Section 40(2)(ii) Cr.P.C. and have found that Sections 435, 450 and Section 82(4) Cr.P.C., whereas Section 459 IPC are additionally mentioned therein. counsel for the petitioner has also argued that Sections 83 to 86 Cr.P.C. deal with the proclaimed person and provide a complete attachment of his property but it does not person who has been declared to be a “proclaimed Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the terms “proclaimed person” and “proclaimed connotations. A person who is evading the arrest issued under the particular Sections of which are mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C., can only declared to be a proclaimed offender and the persons under the other ons of the IPC and the laws, can be declared to be a Section 82(1) Cr.P.C.” section (4) ismade a part of he offences mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. are of concealing arrest, could be declared a “proclaimed provisions of the IPC which are mentioned 82(4) Cr.P.C. There is stark distinction between a that reason, A IPC which may extend upto three years or both regarding a person who has been proclaimed in which may who mentioned that Sections 435, 450 and whereas Section 459 IPC are additionally mentioned therein. 83 to provide a complete f his property but it does not person who has been declared to be a “proclaimed considered and “proclaimed A person who is evading the arrest issued under the particular Sections of which are mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C., can only be under the other be declared to be a TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12611- 12. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by this Court in the matter of Rahul Dutta (supra) proclaimed offender in the present case. 13. Further, t in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified place. Such date must not be less than 30 clear publication of the proclamation 14209-2021 titled "Anita Sharma v. State of Punjab ", date of decision 26.03.2021, has summarized the essential requirements of Section 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 concealing him 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 so 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 requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified place. -2026 (O&M) In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by this Court in Rahul Dutta (supra) the petitioner has been wrongly declared proclaimed offender in the present case. Further, the requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified Such date must not be less than 30 clear publication of the proclamation. A co-ordinate Bench of this 2021 titled "Anita Sharma v. State of Punjab ", date of decision , has summarized 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 concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against 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 so 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. -5- In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by this Court in the petitioner has been wrongly declared to be a he requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance an ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM- 2021 titled "Anita Sharma v. State of Punjab ", date of decision , has summarized the essential requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. as "(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 concealing self so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against 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 so 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). (iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by this Court in to be a he requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified days from the date of issuance an -M- 2021 titled "Anita Sharma v. State of Punjab ", date of decision Cr.P.C. as is sine qua non has to Rohit that the person against whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing self so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against is not bound to take evidence in this regard (1) of the Cr.P.C.. (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. evender Singh Negi v. State of (iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12611- Such date must not be less th 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 publicat 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 Singh v. State of Punjab (P&II): 2015 (8 Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550 (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 house or homestead in which the accused ordin town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the subclauses (a) and 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 three copies of t 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 ma proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also required to be published in the newspaper. -2026 (O&M) 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 publicat 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 Singh v. State of Punjab (P&II): 2015 (8 Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550) (vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in Section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C. For pub 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 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. -6- an 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 (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 arily 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 (c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. are conjunctive 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 he 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 y 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. an 30 clear days from the date of GurappaGugal and Shokat Ali v. State of ion 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 (vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in lication, 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 arily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be house. The three (c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. are conjunctive 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 he 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 y be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12611- (vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the as to the date and mode of p Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965 viii) The writing in its specified day in a manner specified in Section 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: 1958 CriLJ 965 (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 14. Perusal of the paper book reveals that Court, Amritsar 23.01.2025 against the accused for 13.02.2025. On the statement of serving official. On 17.03.202 got recorded and the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender. 15. This Court finds that the aforesaid procedure adopted by the learned trial Court does not 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 must specify a date and place for appearance of the accused, and such date must be -2026 (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 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 'irregularity' d 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 Court, Amritsar ordered issuance of proclamation under Section 82 CrPC against the accused for 14.02.2025, which was admittedly On 14.02.2025, the case was adjourned to the statement of serving official. On 17.03.2025 got recorded and the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender. 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 -7- (vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the Court ublication 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 specified day in a manner specified 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' d 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 the learned Judge Special ordered issuance of proclamation under Section 82 CrPC 14.02.2025, which was admittedly effected on , the case was adjourned to 17.03.2025 for recording 5, statement of serving official was got recorded and the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender. This Court finds that the aforesaid procedure adopted by the learned 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 82(1) CrPC clearly requires that the proclamation must specify a date and place for appearance of the accused, and such date must be Court ublication of the proclamation. (See issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in that the proclamation was duly published on a 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. compliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' d 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 the learned Judge Special ordered issuance of proclamation under Section 82 CrPC on effected on recording rving official was This Court finds that the aforesaid procedure adopted by the learned 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 82(1) CrPC clearly requires that the proclamation must specify a date and place for appearance of the accused, and such date must be TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12611- not less than 30 clear days from the date of is not so in the present case. 16. 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 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. 17. In the present case, the proclamation was admittedly effected on 13.02.2025. 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 publication, the learned tr awaiting the presence of the accused. Such adjournment cannot cure the inherent defect in the proclamation proceedings. 18. 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 case. Consequently, the proclamation order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender is legally unsu 19. 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 appear before the trial Court regularly. 20. 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. order dated 17.03.2025 -2026 (O&M) not less than 30 clear days from the date of publication of the proclamation, which is not so in the present case. 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. Reliance in this regard is rightly 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 with 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. 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 case. Consequently, the proclamation order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed 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 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 resume. Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned 17.03.2025 are set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner as -8- publication of the proclamation, which 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 such circumstances, a fresh proclamation is required to be issued and published in accordance with law. Reliance in this regard is rightly 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 with the mandatory requirement of fixing a date beyond 30 clear days from the date of ial Court merely adjourned the matter to 17.03.2025 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 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/Duty Magistrate Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner as publication of the proclamation, which 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 such circumstances, a fresh proclamation is required to be issued and published in accordance with law. Reliance 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 case. Consequently, the proclamation order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed 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 /Duty Magistrate, Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner as TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-12611- ‘proclaimed person’, and he is surrender by him before the tr weeks from today petitioner in Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh. 21. The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner will also submit an 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. 22. It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court/Duty Magistrate vacated. 23. With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of. 24. All pending March 10, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2026 (O&M) ‘proclaimed person’, and he is directed to be released on bail, in the eventuality of surrender by him before the trial Court/Duty Magistrate from today subject to payment of Rs.5000/ Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh. The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner will also submit an 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. is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial /Duty Magistrate within a stipulated period, this order shall be deemed to be With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -9- directed to be released on bail, in the eventuality of /Duty Magistrate within a period of two Rs.5000/- as costs to be deposited by Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh. 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 future and the proceedings will not be delayed because of his conduct. is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial within a stipulated period, this order shall be deemed to be With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of. miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE directed to be released on bail, in the eventuality of two the 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 is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial within a stipulated period, this order shall be deemed to be miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document