CRM-M-16212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 165 MANJIT SINGH STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P referred to First Class under challenge in the present petition under Section hereinafter referred to as 2. while holding a trial for the commission of o Sections 279 a proclaimed 3. petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under 16212-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH MANJIT SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The order dated 09.04.2012 referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned First Class Jalandhar, hereinafter being referred to as under challenge in the present petition. The present petition 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 279-A and 304A of Indian Penal Code, proclaimed offender. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16212-2026 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 25.03.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. (Annexure P-3), hereinafter being passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate referred to as ‘trial Court’ only . The present petition has been filed Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under 304A of Indian Penal Code, declared the petitioner to be shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under (O&M) .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT , hereinafter being Magistrate only, is filed , 2023, he learned trial Court fence punishable under the petitioner to be shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.27 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16212 Sections 279 non-appearance, on various occasions against the petitioner. H petitioner 4. Court issued 25.02.2012 duly effected it was observed that the statutory period of 30 days ha therefore, the petitioner. learned trial Court 5. that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC) declaring the petitioner a proclaimed specifically alleged by read, as required 6. 7. respondent with. 8. 16212-2026 (O&M) 2 s 279-A and 304A of IPC and in the abovementioned case appearance, on various occasions. N against the petitioner. However, the same could not be executed petitioner was not at home. Subsequently, vide order dated issued a proclamation against the petitioner for 25.02.2012 proclamation issued against the petitioner duly effected and statement of serving official was recorded it was observed that the statutory period of 30 days ha therefore, the case was adjourned to 09.04.2012 petitioner. Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order learned trial Court declared the petitioner a The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging 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 (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC) declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender specifically alleged by the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly required under the law. Notice of motion. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab respondent-State. Hence service of notice Heard. in the abovementioned case due to Non-bailable warrants were issued owever, the same could not be executed as the Subsequently, vide order dated 12.12.2011, the learned trial proclamation against the petitioner for 25.02.2012. proclamation issued against the petitioner was received back and statement of serving official was recorded. On 25.02.2012 it was observed that the statutory period of 30 days had not yet elapsed, and 09.04.2012 for the appearance of by virtue of impugned order dated 09.04.2012, the petitioner a proclaimed offender. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to prescribed under Section 84 of (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC) was not complied with, while offender. In this regard, it has been the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab appears on behalf of Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed due to issued as the learned trial On received back 25.02.2012, and appearance of , the The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to prescribed under Section 84 of the , while In this regard, it has been the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly appears on behalf of is hereby dispensed GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.27 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16212 9. trial Court has committed an error declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation issued against the petition the proclamation for 12.12.2011 offender. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court against the petitioner and only on the basis of previous proclamation, which was issued on proclaimed petitioner, one of the essential steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and t the present case, the executing Constable had not publicly read the proclamation at a public place. 10. that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed liable to be set aside. 11. petitioner is the person, who, violated the conditions of bail with impunity, and took the law in his own hands and jumped the bail. The learned State Counsel has argued that in view of above the petitioner cannot to derive 16212-2026 (O&M) 3 It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned Court has committed an error, when without following due process, it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation issued against the petitioner is defective in view of the fact that the proclamation for 25.02.2012 was issued by the learned trial Court on 12.12.2011, but on 25.02.2012 the petitioner was not declared a proclaimed . It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court against the petitioner and only on the basis of previous proclamation, which was issued on 12.12.2011, for 25.02.2012 proclaimed offender on 09.04.2012. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the essential steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and t the present case, the executing Constable had not publicly read the proclamation at a public place. In addition to above, it has that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, aring the petitioner to be a proclaimed liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned State Counsel petitioner is the person, who, violated the conditions of bail with impunity, and took the law in his own hands and jumped the bail. The learned State Counsel has argued that in view of above the petitioner cannot any benefit from any technical defect, if any, which might have It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned when without following due process, it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, er is defective in view of the fact that was issued by the learned trial Court on the petitioner was not declared a proclaimed . It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court against the petitioner and only on the basis of previous proclamation, which .02.2012, the petitioner has been declared According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the essential 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 Constable had not publicly read the also been alleged by the petitioner that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, aring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender, the impugned order is , the learned State Counsel has argued that the petitioner is the person, who, violated the conditions of bail with impunity, and took the law in his own hands and jumped the bail. The learned State Counsel has argued that in view of above the petitioner cannot be permitted any technical defect, if any, which might have It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned when without following due process, it It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, er is defective in view of the fact that was issued by the learned trial Court on the petitioner was not declared a proclaimed . It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court against the petitioner and only on the basis of previous proclamation, which the petitioner has been declared a According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the essential steps to be taken during the course of hat in the present case, the executing Constable had not publicly read the been alleged by the petitioner that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, in , the impugned order is has argued that the petitioner is the person, who, violated the conditions of bail with impunity, and took the law in his own hands and jumped the bail. The learned State be permitted any technical defect, if any, which might have GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.27 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16212 occurred, inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed 12. 13. record the trial Court, statement of 25.02.2012 14. executing had not publicly read the contents of learned trial Court declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed basis of affixation of proclamation issued for appearance on whereas as per laid down procedure, if the statement of was record declared a proclaimed offender, and i.e. for 09.04.2012 16212-2026 (O&M) 4 occurred, inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that the the copy of statement of executing trial Court, before declaring the petitioner statement of executing Constable, namely 25.02.2012, reads as under:- “Stated that on 24.02.2012, I went Manjit Singh son of Karam Singh resident of Village Mange, P.S. Sadar, Kapurthala for the purpose of proclamation. The accused was not present at the spot. A copy of the proclamation was pasted outside the gate of his house, a copy of the proclamation was pasted in the public place at the chowk and one copy of the proclamation was pasted on the Notice Board of this Hon’ble Court. I am present along with report and proclamation. Copy of proclamation report dated 21.02.2012 is Ex.P2.” A bare perusal of the above executing Constable shows that the abovementioned had not publicly read the contents of abovementioned learned trial Court declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed basis of affixation of proclamation issued for appearance on whereas as per laid down procedure, if the statement of was recorded on 25.02.2012 and on 25.02.2012 declared a proclaimed offender, and the 09.04.2012, a fresh proclamation should have been issued occurred, inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be a The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on executing Constable, recorded by the learned the petitioner to be the proclaimed offender. The , namely HC Lakhwinder Singh dated Stated that on 24.02.2012, I went to the house of the accused Manjit Singh son of Karam Singh resident of Village Mange, P.S. Sadar, Kapurthala for the purpose of proclamation. The accused was not present at the spot. A copy of the proclamation side the gate of his house, a copy of the was pasted in the public place at the chowk and one copy of the proclamation was pasted on the Notice Board of this Hon’ble Court. I am present along with report and proclamation. Copy of proclamation is Ex.P-1 and copy of the report dated 21.02.2012 is Ex.P2.” A bare perusal of the above-mentioned statement of the Constable shows that the abovementioned executing Constable abovementioned proclamation. T learned trial Court declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender on the basis of affixation of proclamation issued for appearance on 25.02.2012 whereas as per laid down procedure, if the statement of executing Constable 25.02.2012 the petitioner was not case was adjourned for next date, , a fresh proclamation should have been issued against the occurred, inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be a placed on recorded by the learned . The dated the house of the accused Manjit Singh son of Karam Singh resident of Village Mange, P.S. Sadar, Kapurthala for the purpose of proclamation. The accused was not present at the spot. A copy of the proclamation side the gate of his house, a copy of the was pasted in the public place at the chowk and one copy of the proclamation was pasted on the Notice Board of this Hon’ble Court. I am present along with report and 1 and copy of the mentioned statement of the Constable The on the 25.02.2012, Constable was not next date, against the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.27 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16212 petitioner. abovesaid procedure, proclaimed person. 15. been presc that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be a proclaimed person: 16. it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of abovementioned provisions of Section It has also been held that spirit, the offender/proclaimed person 17. statement of read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, 16212-2026 (O&M) 5 petitioner. A perusal of record further reveals that without abovesaid procedure, the learned trial Court declared the petitioner a proclaimed person. The procedure to be adopted cribed under Section 82(2) of CrPC that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be a proclaimed person:- “(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; (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 ordinaril 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 if the above process is not spirit, the impugned order declaring a person to be a proclaimed 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 petitioner ordinarily resides, A perusal of record further reveals that without following the the learned trial Court declared the petitioner a d by the Executing Constable, CrPC, Section 82(2) CrPC lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be “(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; 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; a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house; 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.” rd to mandatory nature of abovementioned procedure, it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of (2) of CrPC is mandatory in nature. the above process is not followed in letter and 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 petitioner ordinarily resides, following the the learned trial Court declared the petitioner a Executing Constable, has lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person 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 a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous 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 mentioned procedure, it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of is mandatory in nature. in letter and order declaring a person to be a proclaimed that the where depicts that the proclamation was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.27 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16212 as prescribed un declaring the petitioner 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 and not sustainable in the eyes of High Court in the cases of 18 and ‘Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab 19. 2023(2) Law Herald 1545 issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh proclamation should be issued ‘Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Another decided on 04.09.2024) and 50704- 2024, decided on 28.11.2024) 20. abovementioned fact declaring 16212-2026 (O&M) 6 as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C. Thus, declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person sustainable in the eyes of law. This Court in the cases of CRM-M-27944 of 2024 and ‘Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab 50704-2024, has observed that if a proclamation is not read at a onspicuous 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 and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been High Court in the cases of ‘Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab’ In this regard in the case of ‘ 2023(2) Law Herald 1545, this Court has issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh proclamation should be issued. Similar view has been taken in the cases of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Another decided on 04.09.2024) and ‘Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab 2024, decided on 28.11.2024). Taking into consideration the abovementioned factors, as there was a defect in declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender der Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C. Thus, the impugned order to be a proclaimed person is defective and not Court in the cases of ‘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 prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a), the order declaring the abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offender is defective law. Similar view has been taken by this Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State’ AIR 1955 Punjab ’ in CRM-M-21736-2024. ‘Tirlok Chand Vs. State of Haryana has observed that if a proclamation is issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh . Similar view has been taken in the cases of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Another’ (CRM-M-27944 of 2024, Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab’ (CRM- Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the was a defect in the impugned order while offender, the order dated 09.04.2012 impugned order defective and not 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 (i)(a), the order declaring the offender is defective taken by this Punjab Tirlok Chand Vs. State of Haryana’ observed that if a proclamation is issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh . Similar view has been taken in the cases of 27944 of 2024, -M- of the the impugned order while 09.04.2012 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.27 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16212 passed by unsustainable in the eyes 21. petition is by the learned trial Court 22. of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail had been cancelled and learned trial Court with regard to cancellation of bail and issuance of of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court weeks from today discretion of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 Cr.P.C), as per law application for bail not beyond the 23. disposed of Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 16212-2026 (O&M) 7 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby held to be sustainable in the eyes of law. As a sequel to abovementioned observations petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated by the learned trial Court is hereby quashed It is however made clear that this of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail been cancelled and the bonds were learned trial Court with regard to cancellation of bail and issuance of of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court weeks from today, the learned trial Court will be at liberty n for taking the petitioner into cu of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 , as per law. However, in case the petitioner surrenders and file application for bail, the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any c not beyond the period of three days. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly. Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/ hereby held to be perverse, defective and As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present the impugned order dated 09.04.2012 passed is hereby quashed. It is however made clear that this order is with regard to legality of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail forfeited to the State, the order of learned trial Court with regard to cancellation of bail and issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court within a period of two , the learned trial Court will be at liberty to exercise the petitioner into custody or proceed under Section 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 in case the petitioner surrenders and files the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any c Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand :Yes/No Yes/No defective and present passed order is with regard to legality of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail forfeited to the State, the order of warrant of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the within a period of two e its under Section 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 s an the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.27 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document