277 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH CRM-M-47378-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 MANINDER SINGH …Petitioner V/S STATE OF PUNJAB …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana in case bearing No. CHI/2468/2023, whereby the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in case bearing FIR No. 59 dated 16.03.2023 registered under Sections 420, 120-B of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Jamalpur, District Ludhiana. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia contends mother of the petitioner i.e. co-accused Harpal Kaur was arrested in the FIR(supra) and during that time, the petitioner was residing at the house of his maternal uncle at Village Chotiya Khurd, District Moga. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that impugned order dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P-2) is bad in law as vide order dated 21.09.2023, proclamation was issued against the petitioner and the same was never served to him. Learned counsel further contends that petitioner was declared as proclaimed person vide the impugned order without following the proper procedure and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the mandate of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. has not been followed in its letter and AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.12 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-47378-2024 (O&M) -2- spirit by the trial Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the order passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure his presence. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 5. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual-accused and interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself. This Court in the judgment passed in Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; 2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 has held that the Court is first required to record its satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non-recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable illegality. In the judgment passed by this Court in Sonu Vs. State of Haryana 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319, it has been held that the conditions specified in Section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.12 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-47378-2024 (O&M) -3- proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and renders the proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. 7. The sole purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants or issuance of proclamation is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The petitioner in the present case has himself come forward and has undertaken to appear before the trial Court on each and every date. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.11.2023 (Annexures P-2) vide which the petitioner was declared proclaimed person, is hereby set aside along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within four weeks and on his doing so, he shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, along with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the PGIMER Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh, for wasting precious time of the Court. 9. The receipt of payment of costs imposed must be presented before learned trial Court. The learned Court below is directed grant bail to the petitioner only upon verification of payment of said cost. 10. It the petitioner fails to surrender before the learned trial Court, within the stipulated period, the interim relief granted to the petitioner vide this order shall be deemed to be automatically vacated. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 08.05.2025 Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No AJAY GOSWAMI 2025.05.12 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document