CRM-M-35310-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 165 CRM-M-35310-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Gurmail Singh Josan @ Guri @ Sonu @ Gurmail Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Gobind Singh Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner. (Through VC) Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for quashing of order dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur in case arising out of FIR No. 308 dated 28.09.2021, registered under Sections 307, 323 and 34 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station City Ferozepur, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in the aforementioned case. Subsequently, a compromise has been effected between the parties and a petition seeking quashing of the aforementioned FIR has already been filed before this Court, which is pending for adjudication. It is further argued that the petitioner was never served with any notice/warrants issued by the learned trial Court at his ordinary place of residence. He had been declared a proclaimed person without following the MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.06 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35310-2026 (O&M) -2- proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. He is ready to join the Court proceedings. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter, has resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner has rightly been declared a proclaimed person as he was running away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions. 6. On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed by the learned trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed person, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 7. After going through the material placed on record as well as the copies of zimni orders passed by the learned trial Court, it is revealed that on 22.01.2025, since the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner were received back unserved, the learned trial Court had ordered for issuance of proclamation against him for 24.03.2025. A bare perusal of this order shows that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its proper satisfaction that the petitioner had absconded or was MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.06 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35310-2026 (O&M) -3- concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561. 8. Further, a perusal of the statement of the serving police official reveals that the proclamation was not publicly read over in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the petitioner was supposed to be residing. As per Section 82 (2) of Cr.P.C. for publication, the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house. The three sub-clauses (a)-(c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368. 9. Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above and also in view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur in case arising out of FIR No. 308 dated 28.09.2021, registered under Sections 307, 323 and 34 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.06 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-35310-2026 (O&M) -4- City Ferozepur, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 10. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court concerned within a period of four weeks, subject to order for grant of anticipatory bail, if any passed on his petition to be filed under Section 482 of BNSS. In the absence of any order for grant of anticipatory bail and on such surrender, the petitioner shall be liable to be remanded to judicial custody subject to any order for grant of regular bail to be passed by the concerned Court in accordance with law. 11. Needless to observe that in case any application is filed before the concerned Court for grant of regular bail, then the concerned Court shall be bound to dispose of the same expeditiously and that nothing in this order shall be treated as expression of any opinion on merits so as to bind or influence the concerned Court in disposal of the same. 12. Till the appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court, his arrest shall remain stayed. 13. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today, this petition shall be deemed to be dismissed. 06.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Waseem Waseem Waseem R. R. R. R. Ansari Ansari Ansari Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.06 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document