CRM-M-15429 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT VIJAY ANAND STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Argued by SURYA P referred to as ‘impugned order’, First Class Bhiwani under challenge in the present petition under Section hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’ 2. while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. 8587 15429-2026(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH VIJAY ANAND VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Argued by : Mr. D.K. Tuteja, Advocate for Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana. SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The order dated 05.02.2026 referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned First Class Bhiwani, hereinafter being referred to as under challenge in the present petition. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’ only. By virtue of abovementioned o while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15429-2026 (O&M) RESERVED ON : 20.03.2026 PRONOUCED ON : 25.03.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH for the petitioner. Ramender Singh Chauhan, AAG Haryana. 05.02.2026 (Annexure P-1), 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 Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, declared the petitioner to be a (O&M) RESERVED ON : 20.03.2026 03.2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT , hereinafter being Magistrate ’ only, is . The present petition has been filed , 2023, rder, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, declared the petitioner to be a GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 21:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15429 3. petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and in the abovementioned case bail. However, due to wrong information regarding next date of hearing before the learned trial Court learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner bailable warrants occasions, the non be executed 4. Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for recording of statement of executing Constable regarding publication of proclamation and petitioner. Thereafter, when the statement of recorded on 02.01.2026 05.02.2026 Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order, the pet proclaimed 5. 6. trial Court has committed an error declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. 8587 15429-2026(O&M) In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and in the abovementioned case . However, due to wrong information regarding next date of hearing before the learned trial Court, i.e. 12.03.2026, instead of 05.12.2025, the learned trial Court, due to non-appearance of the petitioner cancelled the bail of the petitioner, forfeited bailable warrants against him for 22.12.2025 occasions, the non-bailable warrants issued be executed. Subsequently, vide order dated Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for recording of statement of executing Constable regarding publication of proclamation and adjourned the case for 05.02.2026 for petitioner. Thereafter, when the statement of recorded on 05.01.2026 with respect to the affixation of proclamation on 02.01.2026, the learned trial Court adjourned the case for the next date, i.e. 05.02.2026, the date already fixed for awaiting appearance of the Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order, the pet proclaimed person. Heard. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process, declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. 2 shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and in the abovementioned case, the petitioner was on . However, due to wrong information regarding next date of hearing i.e. 12.03.2026, instead of 05.12.2025, the appearance of the petitioner before the Court, , forfeited his bail bonds and issued non for 22.12.2025. However, on various bailable warrants issued against the petitioner could not Subsequently, vide order dated 22.12.2025, the learned trial Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for 05.01.2026, recording of statement of executing Constable regarding publication of adjourned the case for 05.02.2026 for the presence of . Thereafter, when the statement of executing Constable was with respect to the affixation of proclamation on , the learned trial Court adjourned the case for the next date, i.e. for awaiting appearance of the petitioner Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order, the petitioner was declared It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned when without following due process, declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. It has been further shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under , the petitioner was on . However, due to wrong information regarding next date of hearing i.e. 12.03.2026, instead of 05.12.2025, the before the Court, and issued non- on various could not learned trial for recording of statement of executing Constable regarding publication of presence of xecuting Constable was with respect to the affixation of proclamation on , the learned trial Court adjourned the case for the next date, i.e. petitioner. itioner was declared a It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned when without following due process, it further GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 21:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15429 contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation on 05.01.2026 statement of executing Constable was proclamation as reflected in the statement dated 05.02.2026 (Annexure P learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the course of proclamation and that in the present case, the executing proclamation at a public place. 7. counsel for by the learned trial Court against the petitioner previous proclamation, which was issued on declared because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed liable to be set aside. 8. 9. 8587 15429-2026(O&M) contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation issued against the petitioner is defective in view of fact that the on 05.01.2026 statement of executing Constable was proclamation of the petitioner, rather the same was recorded on 05.02.2026 as reflected in the statement dated 05.02.2026 (Annexure P learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the course of proclamation was the reading and that in the present case, the executing proclamation at a public place. In addition to above, it has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued learned trial Court against the petitioner proclamation, which was issued on declared a proclaimed person. It has been alleged because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed liable to be set aside. Per contra, the learned State Counsel The record has been perused carefully. 3 contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, against the petitioner is defective in view of fact that the on 05.01.2026 statement of executing Constable was not recorded regarding , rather the same was recorded on 05.02.2026 as reflected in the statement dated 05.02.2026 (Annexure P-6). According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the basic steps to be taken during was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing official had not publicly read the t has also been pointed out by learned that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued learned trial Court against the petitioner, and only on the basis of proclamation, which was issued on 22.12.2025, the petitioner w t has been alleged by the petitioner that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person, the impugned order , the learned State Counsel ord has been perused carefully. contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, the against the petitioner is defective in view of fact that the recorded regarding , rather the same was recorded on 05.02.2026 According to the basic steps to be taken during of proclamation at a public place, official had not publicly read the t has also been pointed out by learned that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued and only on the basis of was by the petitioner that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, in , the impugned order is GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 21:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15429 10. record the learned trial Court, before passing the order a proclaimed dated 05.02.2026 11. executing not publicly read the contents of 05.02.2026 the executing person. 12. executing CrPC lays down to be a proclaimed person: 8587 15429-2026(O&M) A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on the copy of statement of the executing learned trial Court, before passing the order a proclaimed . The statement of executing 05.02.2026 reads as under:- “Sir, for service publication against accused Vijay Anand s/o Sh. Om Prakash r/o Ward No.13, Gohana Tehsil …. District Sonipat, by visiting house on 02.01.2026 raid was conducted but the accused was not found in the house. A copy of publication was affixed in gali sare accused and the munadi of the publication was done. copy of the publication was affixed Hon’ble Court. The third copy of the publication after report is submitted to the Hon’ble Court. A bare perusal of the above executing Constable shows that the above not publicly read the contents of the 05.02.2026 shows that merely on the basis of above executing Constable, the petitioner has been declared With regard to the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the executing Constable, it is relevant to mention lays down that following steps, 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 of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; 4 A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on executing Constable recorded by the learned trial Court, before passing the order of declaring the petitioner to be executing Constable, namely Rakesh Sir, for service publication against accused Vijay Anand s/o Sh. Om Prakash r/o Ward No.13, Gohana Tehsil …. District on 02.01.2026 raid was conducted accused was not found in the house. A copy of in gali sare-aam in front of house accused and the munadi of the publication was done. Second copy of the publication was affixed on the notice board of the Hon’ble Court. The third copy of the publication after report is submitted to the Hon’ble Court.” A bare perusal of the abovementioned statement of the Constable shows that the above-named executing Constable had the proclamation. The order dated rely on the basis of abovementioned statement of Constable, the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed mentioned procedure adopted by the Constable, it is relevant to mention here that Section 82(2) of to be taken before declaring a 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 resides; A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on Constable recorded by the the petitioner to be Rakesh, Sir, for service publication against accused Vijay Anand s/o Sh. Om Prakash r/o Ward No.13, Gohana Tehsil …. District on 02.01.2026 raid was conducted accused was not found in the house. A copy of aam in front of house of Second on the notice board of the Hon’ble Court. The third copy of the publication after report is mentioned statement of the Constable had proclamation. The order dated mentioned statement of proclaimed mentioned procedure adopted by the (2) of to be taken before declaring a person (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 21:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15429 13. 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, offender/proclaimed person is defective. 14. Anr.’ CRM Punjab’CRM at a conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a), the order declaring the abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offend and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken by this High Court in the cases of ‘Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State’ AIR 1955 Punjab18 and ‘Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab’ in CRM 15. abovementioned factors, as there was a defect in affixation of proclamation, i.e. non-reading of proclamation in public place, the order dated 8587 15429-2026(O&M) (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 a proclaimed offender/proclaimed person is defective. This Court in the cases of ‘Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab Anr.’ CRM-M-27944 of 2024 and ‘Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab’CRM-M-50704-2024, has observed that if a proclamation is not read conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a), the order declaring the abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offend and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken by this High Court in the cases of ‘Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State’ AIR 1955 Punjab18 and ‘Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab’ in CRM Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the abovementioned factors, as there was a defect in affixation of proclamation, reading of proclamation in public place, the order dated 5 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 This Court in the cases of ‘Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab 27944 of 2024 and ‘Gagandeep Singh v. State of observed that if a proclamation is not read conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides, as 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 High Court in the cases of ‘Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State’ AIR 1955 Punjab18 and ‘Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab’ in CRM-M-21736-2024. ation the cumulative effect of the abovementioned factors, as there was a defect in affixation of proclamation, reading of proclamation in public place, the order dated 05.02.2026 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 order declaring a person to be a proclaimed This Court in the cases of ‘Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & 27944 of 2024 and ‘Gagandeep Singh v. State of observed that if a proclamation is not read conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a), the order declaring the er is defective and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken by this High Court in the cases of ‘Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State’ AIR 1955 2024. ation the cumulative effect of the abovementioned factors, as there was a defect in affixation of proclamation, 05.02.2026 GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 21:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15429 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby held to be perverse, unsustainable in the eyes of law. 16. petition is by the learned trial Court 17. of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail had been cancelled and bonds learned trial Court with regard to cancellation of bail and issuan of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the petitioner i 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 Cr.P.C), as per law application for bail not beyond the before the 18. disposed of Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether 8587 15429-2026(O&M) passed by the learned trial Court is hereby held to be perverse, unsustainable in the eyes of law. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside 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 bonds were forfeited to the State, the order of learned trial Court with regard to cancellation of bail and issuan of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the petitioner into custody 491 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 not beyond the period of three days. The e learned trial Court within a peri Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, accordingly. Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/ 6 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby held to be perverse, defective and As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present and the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 passed set aside. 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, the learned trial Court nto 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 case e petitioner is directed to surren iod of one month. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand :Yes/No : Yes/No fective and As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present passed 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 ce of warrant of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the the learned trial Court under Section 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 s an any case nder Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 21:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document