CRM-M-32093-2025 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 129 CRM-M-32093-2025 Date of decision: 04.07.2025 BHUVNESH GULATI ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present : Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. SANJAY VASHISTH. J.(Oral) 1. The instant petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed for quashing of the order dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal in complain case No.NACT-2763-2023 titled as Kararmjeet Singh Vs. Bhuvnesh Gulati, whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person under Section 84(1) of the BNSS and a direction has been issued to the concerned SHO to register an FIR under Section 209 of BNS against the petitioner. 2. Counsel submits that since the presiding officer was availing the child care leave, the matter was placed before the successor Court and vide order dated 23.11.2023, fresh notice was issued to the petitioner for 27.02.2024 and on the said date i.e. on 27.02.2024, notice to the petitioner was not received back either served or unserved. The said Court issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioner on 17.08.2024. Since the petitioner was not appearing before the concerned Court, proclamation was issued against the petitioner and vide order dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P-10), petitioner was declared as proclaimed person AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.07.04 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-32093-2025 - 2- and a direction was issued to register an FIR under Section 209 of the BNS, 2023. 3. Thus learned counsel submits that in case one opportunity is granted for releasing the petitioner on bail, by protecting him from arrest, the petitioner undertakes that he would not absent himself in future, without there being prior permission from the Court, and fully cooperate for early disposal of the trial. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana puts an appearance, and opposes the request of the petitioner by submitting that petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, because, he knowingly evade the proceedings before the trial Court. Learned State counsel further submits that looking at his behaviour, there is no surety that in future, petitioner would not be absent for the purpose of delaying the trial. 6. In number of cases, wherein, accused stopped appearing in criminal cases, the Courts are compelled to declare accused as ‘Proclaimed Person/Proclaimed Offender’. After examining the facts, this Court has formulated a uniform method to ensure the presence of accused before the concerned Court, to enable it to proceed further instead of delaying the proceedings by awaiting the presence of accused. Intentional or unintentional default of the accused can be dealt with by examining the facts from case to case involved, and where it is realised that absence or prolonged absence of such accused is intentional to evade the process of law, he/she can be penalized examining the nature of crime in which he is facing the proceedings and thereupon by imposing some cost amount subject to his/her capacity to pay. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.07.04 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-32093-2025 - 3- Primary object of every Court is only to examine the commission of crime in question before it viz-a-viz the person/accused, who is subjected to such proceedings, and if possible justice be imparted at the earliest without unnecessary delay. It is not expected that undue time would be devoted in securing the presence of absconded accused and also to waste energy by enforcing the special mechanism to arrest such accused. Considering all such aspects, this Court in the case of Ashish Kumar Honda @ Ashish Handa Vs. State of Punjab, 2022 (4) RCR (criminal) 765; Law Finder Doc Id # 20238111 considered similar plea of appearance, expressed at the instance of the accused, who failed to appear before the Court at appropriate time, and observed that: “paramount consideration of the Court is to secure presence of accused on each and every date for speeding up the trial for its final conclusion. Already Courts are flooded with so much litigation, resulting in slow pace of work, because of more than one reason. The required energy and manpower be used for expediting the proceedings of the Court, instead of running after the accused persons to get hold of them.” Again, this Court has considered the aforementioned similar plea in case Veena @ Veena Devi v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-2206-2025, decided on 16.01.2025. 7. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and examined the relevant material available on record. The petitioner had not appeared before the learned trial Court and accordingly impugned order declaring the petitioner ‘proclaimed person’ has been passed against him. It also cannot be left unnoticed that as and when the petitioner came to know about passing of the impugned order, the petitioner has moved the present petition, showing his inclination to submit himself before the trial Court. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.07.04 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CRM-M-32093-2025 - 4- 8. In totality of circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given one chance to appear before the trial Court, so that proceedings may restart and continue in smooth manner. Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned order dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P-10) is set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner as ‘proclaimed person’, and he is directed to be released on bail, in the eventuality of surrender by him before the trial Court on or before 22.07.2025. The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner would also submit specific undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial in future and the proceedings would not be delayed because of his conduct. However, this order shall be subject to the payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs, to be deposited by the petitioner in an Old Age Home of the area, as may be decided by the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court shall also specify the time frame within which such costs will be required to be deposited, but not more than two weeks, failing which this order would not be of any advantage to the petitioner. 9. With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) 04.07.2025 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2025.07.04 19:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment