CRM-M-41606-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 139 CRM-M-41606-2026 Decided on : 29.07.2026 Gurjeet Singh . . . Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: None. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS petitioner is seeking quashing/setting aside of order dated 22.01.2026(Annexure P-6), whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed Person/offender in case FIR No.0083 dated 20.05.2022, under Sections 341, 379-B, 34 IPC (corresponding Sectios 126(2), 304(2), 3(5) of BNS), registered at Police Station, alongwith consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. It is pleaded that petitioner was granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court and, in compliance with the orders dated 13.06.2022 and 14.09.2022, duly joined the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, challan was presented, and petitioner furnished bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and regularly appeared before the Court. It is submitted that petitioner could not appear on a solitary date of hearing due to bona fide reasons, whereupon the learned Trial Court cancelled his bail bonds, issued non-bailable warrants, and subsequently declared him a proclaimed person vide order dated 22.01.2026. Further pleaded that petitioner was never personally served with the non-bailable warrants or proclamation, as the process server's report itself records that the petitioner was not available at his residence and that his RASHMI 2026.07.29 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41606-2026 - 2 - brother informed the serving official that petitioner was working as a waiter. It is, therefore, submitted that mandatory procedure prescribed for issuance and execution of proclamation was not followed, rendering the impugned order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person illegal, without jurisdiction, and liable to be set aside. It is also pleaded that petitioner apprehends his arrest on account of having been declared a proclaimed person. However, he is ready and willing to surrender before the learned Trial Court and join the proceedings so as to facilitate the early conclusion of the case, and undertakes to fully cooperate with the trial proceedings. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s absence before the learned Trial Court was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to the reasons stated hereinabove. Lastly, learned counsel submits that if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner by extending protection from arrest, he undertakes to remain present on all future dates of hearing, unless exempted by the Court, and shall fully cooperate for the expeditious conclusion of the trial. 3. I have perused the relevant material on record. It is evident that petitioner is inclined to join the process of law, and by way of present petition, he is seeking one chance to join the proceedings before the learned Trial Court, by abiding to the terms and conditions. 4. 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 RASHMI 2026.07.29 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41606-2026 - 3 - 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 realized 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 vis a vis 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: “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). RASHMI 2026.07.29 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41606-2026 - 4 - 5. In the totality of circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner may be granted one opportunity to appear before the trial Court so that the proceedings can recommence and continue smoothly. Accordingly, the plea of the petitioner is accepted to the extent of setting aside the impugned order dated 22.01.2026(Annexure P-6), whereby petitioner was declared a ‘proclaimed person/offender.’ Petitioner is directed to be released on bail upon his surrender before the trial Court on or before 11.08.2026. 6. Petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In addition, petitioner shall submit a specific undertaking/affidavit affirming that he will regularly appear during the trial proceedings in the future, and that the proceedings shall not be delayed on account of his conduct. 7. However, it is made clear that in case an FIR under Section 209 of the BNS (corresponding to Section 174-A IPC) has already been registered and the same is pending and not under challenge before this Court in the present proceedings, the instant order shall be deemed to be inoperative. 8. With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE 29.07.2026 rashmi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No RASHMI 2026.07.29 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document