IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 141 CRM-M-38935-2026 Decided on : 17.07.2026 Narinderjit Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Harmanpreet Singh Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. Instant petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.), has been filed for quashing of the order dated 24.02.2022 (Annexure P-4), passed by Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib (in short, ‘Ld. JMIC’), whereby the petitioner has been declared as ‘proclaimed offender’, on account of his non-appearance in the following FIR:- FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District 0002 09.01.2020 S. 353, 186, 147, 149 of IPC [corresponding S. 132, 221, 191(2), 190 of BNS, 2023] Badali Ala Singh Fatehgarh Sahib 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was declared a 'proclaimed offender' vide order dated 24.02.2022 (P-4). It is further contended that, initially, there were 11 accused in the aforesaid FIR, out of whom, except petitioner – Narinderjit Singh, all the remaining 10 co-accused have been acquitted vide judgment dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-2), passed by the learned JMIC, Fatehgarh Sahib. It is, however, submitted that the petitioner was residing abroad and was not JAWALA RAM 2026.07.20 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-38935-2026 - 2 - present in India during the relevant period. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner never received any summons or warrants in the present case. While referring to zimni order dated 11.11.2021 (Annexure P-3), learned counsel submits that a perusal thereof clearly shows that "notice issued to accused Narinderjit Singh received back with the report that he has gone abroad." However, no further steps were taken by the learned trial Court to effect service upon the petitioner in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. 3. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner never evaded arrest, concealed himself, or intentionally disobeyed any order of the Court. It is contended that impugned order dated 24.02.2022 (P-4), passed by the Ld. JMIC, Fatehgarh Sahib, suffers from patent illegality, as the same was passed without following the due procedure prescribed under law, inasmuch as the proclamation proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 84 of the BNSS, 2023). It is, thus, submitted that the aforesaid lapse on the part of the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to the circumstances noticed here-above. It is further submitted that, if one opportunity is granted by protecting the petitioner from arrest and directing his release on bail upon his surrender before the learned trial Court, he undertakes not to absent himself from the proceedings in future without prior permission of the Court and to fully cooperate in the expeditious conclusion of the trial. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Learned State counsel puts an appearance, and opposes the request of the petitioner by submitting that petitioner does not deserve any JAWALA RAM 2026.07.20 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-38935-2026 - 3 - sympathy, because, he knowingly evade the proceedings before the trial Court. Learned State counsel further submits that looking at his behaviour, there is no surety that in future, petitioner would not be absent for the purpose of delaying the trial. 6. In number of cases, wherein, accused stopped appearing in criminal cases, the Courts are compelled to declare accused as ‘Proclaimed Person/Proclaimed Offender’. After examining the facts, this Court has formulated a uniform method to ensure the presence of accused before the concerned Court, to enable it to proceed further instead of delaying the proceedings by awaiting the presence of accused. Intentional or unintentional default of the accused can be dealt with by examining the facts from case to case involved, and where it is realised that absence or prolonged absence of such accused is intentional to evade the process of law, he/she can be penalized examining the nature of crime in which he is facing the proceedings and thereupon by imposing some cost amount subject to his/her capacity to pay. Primary object of every Court is only to examine the commission of crime in question before it viz-a-viz the person/accused, who is subjected to such proceedings, and if possible justice be imparted at the earliest without unnecessary delay. It is not expected that undue time would be devoted in securing the presence of absconded accused and also to waste energy by enforcing the special mechanism to arrest such accused. Considering all such aspects, this Court in the case of Ashish Kumar Honda @ Ashish Handa Vs. State of Punjab, 2022 (4) RCR (criminal) 765; Law Finder Doc Id # 20238111 considered similar plea of appearance, expressed at the instance of the accused, who failed to appear before the Court at appropriate time, and observed that: JAWALA RAM 2026.07.20 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-38935-2026 - 4 - “paramount consideration of the Court is to secure presence of accused on each and every date for speeding up the trial for its final conclusion. Already Courts are flooded with so much litigation, resulting in slow pace of work, because of more than one reason. The required energy and manpower be used for expediting the proceedings of the Court, instead of running after the accused persons to get hold of them.” Again, this Court has considered the aforementioned similar plea in case Veena @ Veena Devi v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-2206-2025, decided on 16.01.2025. 7. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and examined the relevant material available on record. The petitioner has remiss in appearing before the Court only on one date i.e. on 24.02.2022 (P-4), when impugned order declaring the petitioner ‘proclaimed offender’ has been passed against him. It also cannot be left unnoticed that as and when the petitioner came to know about passing of the impugned order, the petitioner has moved the present petition, showing his inclination to submit himself before the trial Court. 8. In totality of circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given one chance to appear before the trial Court, so that proceedings may restart and continue in smooth manner. Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned order dated 24.02.2022 (P-4) is set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner as ‘proclaimed offender’, and he is directed to be released on bail, in the eventuality of surrender by him before the trial Court on or before 31.07.2026. The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner would also submit specific undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial in future and the proceedings would not be delayed because of his conduct. However, this order shall be subject to the payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs, to be deposited by the petitioner in an Old Age Home of the area, as JAWALA RAM 2026.07.20 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-38935-2026 - 5 - may be decided by the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court shall also specify the time frame within which such costs will be required to be deposited, but not more than two weeks, failing which this order would not be of any advantage to the petitioner. 9. With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 17, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2026.07.20 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document