CRM-M-30600 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 152 Sandeep Kumar @ Sandi State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202 quashing of order dated Sub Divisional dated 18.04.2017 at Police Station been declared a proclaimed 2. grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. 30600-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sandeep Kumar @ Sandi Versus of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Inder Preet Singh Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Himani Arora, AAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202 quashing of order dated 05.05.2025 (Annexure P Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha 18.04.2017, registered under Sections at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala been declared a proclaimed person. The present petition has been f grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned case was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-30600-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.05.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Inder Preet Singh Kohli, Advocate Ms. Himani Arora, AAG, Punjab. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) 05.05.2025 (Annexure P-8), passed by the learned Nabha in case arising out of FIR No. , registered under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala, whereby the petitioner had 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. The petitioner was on bail and was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. However, he was - 2025 (O&M) 29.05.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section (for short ‘BNSS’) for learned arising out of FIR No. 25 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 , whereby the petitioner had iled by the petitioner on the grounds and it has been argued by his counsel that the petitioner has been was on bail and However, he was MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30600 falsely implicated in one more case bearing FIR No. 189 dated 13.08.2024, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 324(4), 351(3), 191(3) and 190 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Balongi, District SAS Nagar, due to regularly before the learned trial Court in this case, which resulted into cancellation of his bail and ultimately into his declaration as a proclaimed person. More so, t following the proper procedure prescribed under Court proceedings. set aside. 3. 4. of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by him that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner has rightly been declared a proclaimed Court. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. and have also gone through the material placed on record. 6. learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed by the learned as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed am of the 30600-2025 (O&M) alsely implicated in one more case bearing FIR No. 189 dated 13.08.2024, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 324(4), 351(3), 191(3) and 190 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Balongi, District SAS Nagar, due to which, the petitioner could not appear regularly before the learned trial Court in this case, which resulted into cancellation of his bail and ultimately into his declaration as a proclaimed More so, the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed p following the proper procedure prescribed under Court proceedings. Hence, it is urged that the Notice of motion. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by him that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner has rightly been declared a proclaimed person as he was running away from the process of s, 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 earned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed learned trial Court from the date of initiating as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated -2- alsely implicated in one more case bearing FIR No. 189 dated 13.08.2024, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 324(4), 351(3), 191(3) and 190 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station which, the petitioner could not appear regularly before the learned trial Court in this case, which resulted into cancellation of his bail and ultimately into his declaration as a proclaimed he petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person without following the proper procedure prescribed under law. He is ready to join the Hence, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be Advocate General, Punjab has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by him that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner has rightly been as he was running away from the process of s, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by earned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed trial Court from the date of initiating proclamation proceedings as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed person considered opinion that the impugned order dated 05.05.2025 - alsely implicated in one more case bearing FIR No. 189 dated 13.08.2024, registered under Sections 109, 115(2), 126(2), 324(4), 351(3), 191(3) and 190 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station which, the petitioner could not appear regularly before the learned trial Court in this case, which resulted into cancellation of his bail and ultimately into his declaration as a proclaimed erson without He is ready to join the impugned order is liable to be advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is submitted by him that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner has rightly been as he was running away from the process of at considerable length On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by earned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed proceedings person, I 05.05.2025 MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30600 suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 7. copies of zim 18.02.2025 received back unserved, proclamation against that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its proper satisfaction that was concealing himself so that the warrant of be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Section of Cr.P.C.) of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 8. was received duly effected on 28.02.2025, requiring the petitioner to cause his appearance before the trial Court on 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 time of not les date of publishing such proclamation which is mandatory in nature. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 30600-2025 (O&M) 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 s of zimni orders passed by the learned 18.02.2025, since the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were received back unserved, the learned trial Court had ordered for issuance of proclamation against him for 25.03.2025. 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 be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Section 84(1) of BNSS (which is pari materia with Section .). Reliance in this regard can be placed upon of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561. A perusal of order dated 25.03.2025 reveals that the proclamation was received duly effected on 28.02.2025, requiring the petitioner to cause his appearance before the trial Court on 25.03.2025 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 84(1) of BNSS 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 Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali Vs. S -3- suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings 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 (which is pari materia with Section 82(1) in this regard can be placed upon Rohit Kumar Vs. State 25.03.2025 reveals that the proclamation was received duly effected on 28.02.2025, requiring the petitioner to cause his 25.03.2025, 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 clear 84(1) of BNSS, as per which, a specified s than 30 days is required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandatory in nature. Reliance Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR - suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the 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 arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the 82(1) Rohit Kumar Vs. State 25.03.2025 reveals that the proclamation was received duly effected on 28.02.2025, requiring the petitioner to cause his 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 clear , as per which, a specified s than 30 days is required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandatory in nature. Reliance State of tate of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30600 (Criminal) 339. the mandatory period of 30 days, fact that it could not have extended the time by simply adjourning the a fresh proclamation was required to be published once the period between issuance of publication of proclamation and the specified period of hearing was less than 30 days. Reference in this context can be made to Singh Vs. State of Punjab 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 arising out of FIR No. 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 whereby the pet with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 10. Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy conclusion of tria he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of weeks from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. 11. Court, his arrest 30600-2025 (O&M) (Criminal) 339. Further, while adjourning the case to the mandatory period of 30 days, the learned trial Court failed to consider the it could not have extended the time by simply adjourning the a fresh proclamation was required to be published once the period between issuance of publication of proclamation and the specified period of hearing was less than 30 days. Reference in this context can be made to Singh Vs. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166 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 learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, arising out of FIR No. 25 dated 18.04.2017 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Keeping in view the fact that Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy conclusion of tria is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. Till the appearance of the petitioner before the Court, his arrest shall remain stayed. -4- , while adjourning the case to 05.05.2025 to complete the learned trial Court failed to consider the it could not have extended the time by simply adjourning the case as a fresh proclamation was required to be published once the period between issuance of publication of proclamation and the specified period of hearing was less than 30 days. Reference in this context can be made to Dilbagh (P&H) : 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166. 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 05.05.2025 (Annexure P Judicial Magistrate, Nabha in case 18.04.2017, registered under Sections 25 and at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala itioner had been declared a proclaimed person, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is ready to join the Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy conclusion of tria is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. Till the appearance of the petitioner before the learned - to complete the learned trial Court failed to consider the case as a fresh proclamation was required to be published once the period between issuance of publication of proclamation and the specified period of hearing Dilbagh and also in , the present (Annexure P-8), in case 25 and Kotwali Nabha, District Patiala, , is quashed is ready to join the Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy conclusion of trial, is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 04 from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction. learned trial MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-30600 12. the learned to be dismissed. 13. Rs. 10,000/ Authority, 29.05.2025 Waseem Ansari Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 30600-2025 (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. However, this relief shall be subject to payment o 0,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services Authority, Ludhiana. 29.05.2025 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 deeme However, this relief shall be subject to payment of cost of , to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services (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 f cost of , to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.05.29 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document