CRM-M-16031 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 175 HEMPREET SINGH STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P referred to as ‘impugned order’ First Class under challenge in the present petition under Section hereinafter referred to as 2. while holding a trial for the commission of o 16031-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH HEMPREET SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Ravinder Singh Randhawa Mr. Lachhman Singh and Ms. Harmeet Kaur, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The order dated 31.08.2023 referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned First Class Ludhiana, 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16031-2026 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 24.03.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH Ravinder Singh Randhawa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Lachhman Singh and Ms. Harmeet Kaur, Advocates Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab. (Annexure P-2), 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 (O&M) .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENTS , hereinafter being Magistrate only, is filed , 2023, he learned trial Court fence punishable under GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16031 Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of petitioner to be 3. petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 427 of Indian Penal Code 15.03.2023 learned trial Court the State and issued non that on various occasions, the non petitioner, gone to Canada 4. Court issued directed the serving Constable to by virtue of impugned order recording the statement of proclaimed 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 person specifically alleged by read, as prescribed 16031-2026 (O&M) 2 s 279, 337, 338 and 427 of Indian Penal Code, petitioner to be a proclaimed person. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under 279, 337, 338 and 427 of Indian Penal Code 15.03.2023, the petitioner did not appear learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner, forfeited the bonds to the State and issued non-bailable warrants against him. on various occasions, the non-bailable warrants ner, could not be executed, as it was recorded that the petitioner had gone to Canada. Subsequently, vide order dated issued the proclamation against the petitioner for directed the serving Constable to affix the same by 29.07.2023 by virtue of impugned order dated 31.08.2023 recording the statement of the executing Constable proclaimed person. 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 the (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person specifically alleged by the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly read, as prescribed under the law. Indian Penal Code, has declared shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under 279, 337, 338 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. However, when on , the petitioner did not appear before the learned trial Court, the cancelled the bail of the petitioner, forfeited the bonds to bailable warrants against him. The record sho bailable warrants, issued against the as it was recorded that the petitioner had Subsequently, vide order dated 12.07.2023, the learned trial proclamation against the petitioner for 31.08.2023, and the same by 29.07.2023. Thereafter 31.08.2023 the learned trial Court, after executing Constable, 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 as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), was not complied with, while declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person. In this regard, it has been the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly declared the shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under when on learned trial Court, the cancelled the bail of the petitioner, forfeited the bonds to ows issued against the as it was recorded that the petitioner had learned trial and after, after 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 as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the , while . In this regard, it has been the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16031 6. 7. respondent with. 8. 9. trial Court has committed an error, when without declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in proclamation at a public place. 10. counsel for learned trial Court, impugned order 11. petitioner is the person, 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 occurred, inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. 16031-2026 (O&M) 3 Notice of motion. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab respondent-State. Hence service of notice Heard. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the trial Court has committed an error, when without declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the ess course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case the executing proclamation at a public place. In addition to above, it has counsel for the petitioner that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, in declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed impugned order is 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 of any technical defect, if any, which might have occurred, inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab appears on behalf of Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. According to learned sential steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, the executing Constable had not read the In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned because of defective procedure adopted by the declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person, the , the learned State Counsel has argued that the 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 permit benefit of any technical defect, if any, which might have occurred, inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be a appears on behalf of is hereby dispensed learned following due process it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. According to learned steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, read the contended by learned because of defective procedure adopted by the , the has argued that the who, violated the conditions of bail with impunity, and took the law in his own hands and jumped the bail. The learned State tted benefit of any technical defect, if any, which might have occurred, inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be a GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16031 12. 13. record the trial Court statement of 14. executing read the contents of no statem read and t The order dated statement of the complianc person. 15. Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention CrPC lays declaring a person to be a proclaimed person: 16031-2026 (O&M) 4 The record has been perused carefully. 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 Constable dated 23.07.2023 “It is requested that one copy of the advertisement is affixed at the given address, second is affixed of the village. It was read aloud. Third copy is affixed at Notice Board of the Hon’ble Court. The original copy is presented before the Hon’ble Court.” A bare perusal of the above executing official shows that the above-named read the contents of abovementioned proclamation ment of the executing Constable that it was so read in some cons The order dated 31.08.2023 shows that statement of the executing Constable, ce was not proper, the petitioner With regard to the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention lays down 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 conspicuous place 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 proclaimed person. The 23.07.2023 reads as under:- one copy of the advertisement is affixed at the given address, second is affixed at the general public pla of the village. It was read aloud. Third copy is affixed at Notice Board of the Hon’ble Court. The original copy is presented A bare perusal of the above-mentioned statement of the named executing Constable althou proclamation in loud voice, but ther that the proclamation was publi spicuous place of the town/villa shows that on the basis of abovementioned , and without realizing that , the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed mentioned procedure adopted by the Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention here that Section 82(2) of down 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 conspicuous place placed on rded by the learned . The one copy of the advertisement is affixed at ace of the village. It was read aloud. Third copy is affixed at Notice Board of the Hon’ble Court. The original copy is presented mentioned statement of the ugh e is icly age. mentioned the proclaimed mentioned procedure adopted by the (2) of down that following steps are necessary to be taken before (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16031 16. it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of 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 was read resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., order declaring the above and not sustainable in the eyes of la 18. Anr.’ CRM CRM-M-50704 conspicuous place of the town or 16031-2026 (O&M) 5 of the town or village in which such 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 consp 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 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 irit, 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 the executing Constable nowhere depicts that the proclamation over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., order declaring the abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person is defective and not sustainable in the eyes of law. This Court in the cases of ‘Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & 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 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. 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 over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., and the impugned said person to be a proclaimed person is defective 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 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 icuous 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 order declaring a person to be a proclaimed that the where depicts that the proclamation over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily impugned said person to be a proclaimed person is defective Jarnail 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 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16031 resides, as 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 18 and ‘Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab 19. abovementioned fact i.e. non-reading of passed by unsustainable in the eyes 20. petition is by the learned trial Court 21. of proclamation only. Since the had been cancelled and learned trial Court with regard to cancellation of bail and issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court weeks from today petitioner into custody Nagarik Suraksha However, 16031-2026 (O&M) 6 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’ Taking into consideration the cumulative effect abovementioned factors, as there was a defect reading of proclamation in public place passed by the learned trial Court is hereby held to be sustainable in the eyes of law. As a sequel to abovementioned petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated by the learned trial Court 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 been cancelled and the bonds were learned trial Court with regard to cancellation of bail and issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court weeks from today, the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the petitioner into custody or proceed under Section 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 Cr.P.C) , in case the petitioner surrenders and file prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a), the order declaring the abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offender is defective 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 affixation of proclamation in public place, the order dated 31.08.2023 hereby held to be perverse, defective and As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present the impugned order dated 29.10.2022 passed is hereby quashed. It is however made clear that this order is with regard to legality 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 take the under Section 491 of the Bharatiya Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 Cr.P.C), as per law in case the petitioner surrenders and files an application for bail (i)(a), the order declaring the offender is defective n by this Punjab of the in affixation of proclamation, 31.08.2023 defective and present passed It is however made clear that this order is with regard to legality 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 refore, in case the within a period of two , the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the under Section 491 of the Bharatiya , as per law. an application for bail, GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-16031 the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case of three days. 22. disposed of Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 16031-2026 (O&M) 7 the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case days. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly. Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/ the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case not beyond the period application(s), if any, shall stand :Yes/No : Yes/No period application(s), if any, shall stand GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document