CRM-M-18365 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 147 SAHIO @SAHID STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P referred to as ‘impugned order’ First Class Kaithal under challenge in the present petition under Section hereinafter referred to as 2. while holding a trial for the commission of o Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 170, 201 and 120 and Section 66 petitioner 18365-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH SAHIO @SAHID VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Baljeet Beniwal and Ms. Ashika Kalra, Advocates for Mr. Kartik Khicher, Advocate Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) The order dated 21.05.2025 referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned First Class Kaithal, hereinafter being referred to as under challenge in the present petition. The present under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’ only. By virtue of abovementioned order, t while holding a trial for the commission of o s 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 170, 201 and 120 and Section 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2000, petitioner to be proclaimed person. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18365-2026 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 06.05.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH Baljeet Beniwal and Ms. Ashika Kalra, Advocates for , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana. (Annexure P-4), hereinafter being passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate referred to as ‘trial Court’ only, . The present petition has been filed Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under s 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 170, 201 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, D of Information Technology Act, 2000, declared (O&M) .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT , hereinafter being Magistrate only, is filed , 2023, he learned trial Court punishable under B of Indian Penal Code, declared the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18365 3. petitioner under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 170, 201 and 120 Section 66 appearance, on various occasions the petitioner. H 4. against the petitioner for official was recorded and the case was adjourned appearance of 21.05.2025 person. 5. ground that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to 84 of the while declaring the petitioner above, it has been specifically alleged by was not publicly read, as prescribed 6. 7. behalf of respondent dispensed with. 8. 18365-2026 (O&M) 2 In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that petitioners were facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 170, 201 and 120 Section 66-D of IT Act and in the abovementioned case appearance, on various occasions, non-baila the petitioner. However, the same could not be executed Subsequently, the learned trial Court against the petitioner for 21.05.2025. On 17.04.2025 was recorded and the case was adjourned appearance of the petitioner. Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order 21.05.2025, the learned trial Court declared The present petition has been filed by the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed, as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC) while declaring the petitioners to be a proclaimed person , it has been specifically alleged by was not publicly read, as prescribed under the law. Notice of motion. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice dispensed with. Heard. shell, the facts emerging from record are that facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 170, 201 and 120-B of IPC, and in the abovementioned case due to non bailable warrants were issued against owever, the same could not be executed. learned trial Court issued proclamation 17.04.2025 the statement of serving was recorded and the case was adjourned to 21.05.2025, by virtue of impugned order, dated declared the petitioner to be proclaimed The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), was not complied with proclaimed person. With regard to the petitioner that the proclamation under the law. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana appears on Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby shell, the facts emerging from record are that the facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable B of IPC, and due to non- issued against issued proclamation statement of serving for dated proclaimed on the that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section complied with With regard to the petitioner that the proclamation appears on is hereby GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18365 9. was never served petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be proclaimed person. According to le taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing publicly read the proclamation at a public place. 10. counsel for to serve process upon the petitioner on of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, petitioner to be aside. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has already been complainant. 11. abovementioned arguments. He has contended petitioner pendency of criminal proceedings against before the Court and remained absent in view of above defect, if any, which might declaring the pe 12. 18365-2026 (O&M) 3 It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner never served through any process. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing publicly read the proclamation at a public place. In addition to above, it has counsel for the petitioner that no effort was made by the learned trial Court to serve process upon the petitioner on his of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, petitioner to be a proclaimed person, the impugned order is liable to be set It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that matter has already been settled between the petitioner complainant. The learned State Counsel has abovementioned arguments. He has contended petitioner is the person, who right from the very pendency of criminal proceedings against before the Court and remained absent for long. As per learned State Counsel, in view of above, the petitioner cannot draw defect, if any, which might have occurred inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be proclaimed person The record has been perused carefully. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner . As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be proclaimed person. arned counsel for the petitioner, one of the basic steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing official did publicly read the proclamation at a public place. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned no effort was made by the learned trial Court his correct address, and that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, in declaring th , the impugned order is liable to be set It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that settled between the petitioner and the The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. He has contended that in the present case, the person, who right from the very beginning, was aware of the pendency of criminal proceedings against him, but opted not to appear for long. As per learned State Counsel, cannot draw any benefit of the technical have occurred inadvertently, in the process of person. The record has been perused carefully. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner . As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be proclaimed person. eps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a not contended by learned no effort was made by the learned trial Court because declaring the , the impugned order is liable to be set It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that and the controverted the present case, the aware of the not to appear for long. As per learned State Counsel, technical have occurred inadvertently, in the process of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18365 13. record the trial Court, statement of 17.04.2025 14. executing publicly read the contents of 21.05.2025 executing 15. executing lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken person to be a proclaimed person: 18365-2026 (O&M) 4 A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner ha the copy of statement of executing trial Court, before declaring the petitioner statement of executing official, namely 17.04.2025, reads as under:- “It is stated that on the date April 10, 2025, a raid was conducted at the residence of the accused Ahmad (alias Mohammad), son of Habib, Shahid, son of Habib, resident of Village Sancholi, Police Station Kosi, District Mathura, U.P. Both accused persons were found to be absent from their home. Consequently, a notice was pasted on the exterior of their house. Second copy pasted at the Village Panchayat Sancholi and third copy pasted on the the Honourable Court. And one copy of notice along with report, is submitted for official record.” A bare perusal of the ab xecuting official shows that the above- publicly read the contents of abovementioned 21.05.2025 shows that on the basis of above xecuting official, the petitioner has been declared With regard to the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the xecuting official, it is relevant to mention lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken 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; A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on xecuting official, recorded by the learned the petitioners to be a proclaimed person. The , namely ASI Sandeep Kumar dated It is stated that on the date April 10, 2025, a raid was conducted at the residence of the accused Ahmad (alias ), son of Habib, Shahid, son of Habib, resident of Village Sancholi, Police Station Kosi, District Mathura, U.P. Both accused persons were found to be absent from their home. Consequently, a notice was pasted on the exterior of their copy pasted at the Village Panchayat Ghar in copy pasted on the official Notice Board of the Honourable Court. And one copy of notice along with report, is submitted for official record.” A bare perusal of the above-mentioned statement of the -named executing official had not abovementioned proclamation. The order dated on the basis of abovementioned statement of the been declared proclaimed person. mentioned procedure adopted by the , it is relevant to mention here 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; placed on recorded by the learned . The dated It is stated that on the date April 10, 2025, a raid was conducted at the residence of the accused Ahmad (alias ), son of Habib, Shahid, son of Habib, resident of Village Sancholi, Police Station Kosi, District Mathura, U.P. Both accused persons were found to be absent from their home. Consequently, a notice was pasted on the exterior of their Ghar in official Notice Board of the Honourable Court. And one copy of notice along with statement of the had not The order dated mentioned statement of the mentioned procedure adopted by the CrPC before declaring a (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18365 16. it has been repeatedly o abovementioned provisions of Section It has also been held that in case the above process is not and spirit, the offender/proclaimed person is defective. 17. statement of read over at a public place in the area where the as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., declaring the above not sustainable in the eyes of law. 18. Anr.’ CRM CRM-M-50704 conspicuous place of the town or resides, as abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed 18365-2026 (O&M) 5 (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 It has also been held that in case the above process is not and spirit, the impugned order declaring a person to be offender/proclaimed person is defective. In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention ement of executing official nowhere depicts that the proclamation was read over at a public place in the area where the as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., declaring the abovesaid persons to be proclaimed person not sustainable in the eyes of law. This Court in the cases of ‘Jarnail CRM-M-27944 of 2024 and ‘Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab 50704-2024, has observed that conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2) abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed 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; ay 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, bserved by this Court, that the compliance of (2) of CrPC is mandatory in nature. It has also been held that in case the above process is not followed in letter order declaring a person to be a proclaimed In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that the where depicts that the proclamation was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioners ordinarily reside, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., and the impugned order to be proclaimed persons is defective and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab observed that if a proclamation is not read at a village in which such person ordinarily ibed under Section 82(2)(i)(a), the order declaring the abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offender is defective 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 ay 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, bserved by this Court, that the compliance of is mandatory in nature. in letter a proclaimed that the where depicts that the proclamation was ordinarily reside, impugned order is defective and Singh v. State of Punjab & Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab’ if a proclamation is not read at a village in which such person ordinarily (i)(a), the order declaring the offender is defective GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18365 and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been High Court in the cases of 18 and ‘Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab 19. abovementioned fact proclamation dated 21.05.2025 perverse, 20. petition is by the learned trial Court 21. Gaurav Thakur Whether Whether reportable 18365-2026 (O&M) 6 and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been High Court in the cases of ‘Pal Singh Santa Sing Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab’ Taking into consideration the cumulative effect abovementioned factors, as there was a defect in proclamation, i.e. non-reading of proclamation 21.05.2025 passed by the learned trial Court is defective and unsustainable in the eyes As a sequel to abovementioned observations petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated by the learned trial Court is hereby quashed Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/ and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken by this Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State’ AIR 1955 Punjab ’ in CRM-M-21736-2024. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the was a defect in the process proclamation in public place, the order learned trial Court is hereby held to be sustainable in the eyes of law. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 passed is hereby quashed. :Yes/No : Yes/No taken by this Punjab of the of the order hereby held to be present passed GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 20:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document