IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 140 CRM-M-38718-2026 Decided on : 17.07.2026 Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Derabassi, 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 seeking quashing of the order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure P-8), passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baba Bakala Sahib, in CHI-307-2021, titled "State versus Kulwinder Singh and others", arising out of FIR No.124, dated 03.05.2021, registered under Sections 323, 324, 506, 148, 149, 427 and 336 IPC [corresponding Sections 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 191(3), 190, 324(4)/(5) and 125 of the BNS, 2023] (later on Section 326 IPC and the corresponding Section 118(2) of the BNS, 2023 were also added) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar Rural, whereby petitioner has been declared a 'Proclaimed Person', allegedly without following the due procedure of law. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the aforesaid case, petitioner was granted bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 25.05.2021 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the police presented the challan on JAWALA RAM 2026.07.20 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-38718-2026 - 2 - 25.10.2021 and, consequently, charges were framed vide order dated 05.04.2023. During the pendency of the trial, PW-1 Mandeep Kumar was partly examined. Thereafter, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 358 of the BNSS, 2023), which was pending consideration before the learned trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is a B.Tech. graduate and is employed as a Seaman. Owing to the nature of his profession, he remains stationed near the sea for prolonged periods. Petitioner had also informed his counsel before the learned trial Court that he was proceeding to Dubai for professional work in January, 2026 and would return to India in the month of June, 2026. In support of the said contention, learned counsel has referred to the passport and other relevant documents appended as Annexure P-3 with the present petition. It is further submitted that, in the meanwhile, on account of the petitioner's non-appearance before the learned trial Court, initially bailable warrants and thereafter non-bailable warrants came to be issued against him. Learned counsel further submits that after returning to India in June, 2026, petitioner was allegedly attacked on 20.06.2026 and sustained serious injuries. Due to which, he could not appear before the learned trial Court and, consequently, vide the impugned order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure P-8), he was declared a 'Proclaimed Person'. It is, thus, contended that the absence of the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to the reasons noticed here-above. Moreover, petitioner is willing to join the proceedings and undertakes to appear before the learned trial Court, if granted an opportunity, subject to such condition(s) as may be imposed by this Court. JAWALA RAM 2026.07.20 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-38718-2026 - 3 - 4. On noticing the contention of petitioner’s counsel, this Court is also not required to examine the sustainability of the order vide which, petitioner was declared ‘proclaimed person’, however, inclination has been expressed by the petitioner himself that in case one opportunity is granted for releasing the petitioner on bail, by protecting him from arrest, he shall not absent himself in future without prior permission from the Court, and shall fully cooperate for early disposal of the trial. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing on advance notice, opposes the request of the petitioner by submitting that petitioner does not deserve any 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 JAWALA RAM 2026.07.20 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-38718-2026 - 4 - 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: “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 due the reasons mentioned here-above, and consequently, impugned order (P-8) declaring the petitioner as ‘proclaimed person’ 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 immediately 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 JAWALA RAM 2026.07.20 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-38718-2026 - 5 - petitioner is accepted. Impugned order dated 07.07.2026 (P-8) is set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner as ‘proclaimed person’, 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 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