CRM-M-18143 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT 162 BALRAJ SINGH STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P referred to as ‘impugned order’ Judicial Magistrate present petition of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ‘BNSS’ only 2. during the Sections 420, 406, 419, 467, 468, 370, 120 24 of Immigration Act and Section 12 of Passport Act petitioner to be 18143-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH BALRAJ SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Lajwant Singh Virk, Advocate Ms. Gurleen Kaur, Advocate Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (oral) The order dated 17.07.2025 referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned Magistrate Sangrur, is under challenge in the present petition present petition, which is second petition, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita only. By virtue of abovementioned order, t during the course of trial, for the commission of o s 420, 406, 419, 467, 468, 370, 120 24 of Immigration Act and Section 12 of Passport Act petitioner to be a proclaimed person. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18143-2026 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 06.04.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate and Ms. Gurleen Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. (Annexure P-8), hereinafter being passed by the learned Additional Chief , is under challenge in the present petition. The , which is second petition, has been filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter referred to as By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court for the commission of offence punishable under s 420, 406, 419, 467, 468, 370, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Section 24 of Immigration Act and Section 12 of Passport Act, has declared (O&M) .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT , hereinafter being Chief . The 528 ereinafter referred to as he learned trial Court, under Section declared the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.07 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18143 3. petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections Immigration Act and Section 12 of Passport Act, case due to non were issued against the petitioner. H 4. against the petitioner for official was recorded and thereafter, case was adjourned to 17.07.2025. 17.07.2025, duly effected and virtue of impugned order a proclaimed 5. that the impugned be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person been specifically alleged by publicly read, as 6. 7. on behalf of respondent hereby dispensed with. 8. 18143-2026 (O&M) 2 In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under 420, 406, 419, 467, 468, 370, 120 Immigration Act and Section 12 of Passport Act, due to non-appearance on various occasions issued against the petitioner. However, the same could not be executed Subsequently, the learned trial Court against the petitioner for 17.07.2025. On official was recorded and thereafter, case was adjourned to 17.07.2025. 17.07.2025, proclamation issued against the effected and the statutory period of virtue of impugned order the learned trial Court proclaimed person. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person been specifically alleged by the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly read, as required under the law. Notice of motion. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice hereby dispensed with. Heard. shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under 420, 406, 419, 467, 468, 370, 120-B of IPC, Section 24 of Immigration Act and Section 12 of Passport Act, and in the abovementioned on various occasions, the non-bailable warrants owever, the same could not be executed learned trial Court issued proclamation n 19.04.2025, statement of executing official was recorded and thereafter, case was adjourned to 17.07.2025. proclamation issued against the petitioner was received back the statutory period of 30 days’ had elapsed. Thus, the learned trial Court declared the petitioner to be The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), was not complied with, while declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person. With regard to above, it has the petitioner that the proclamation was not Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears Hence service of notice upon the State shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under , Section 24 of the abovementioned bailable warrants owever, the same could not be executed. issued proclamation 19.04.2025, statement of executing official was recorded and thereafter, case was adjourned to 17.07.2025. On received back , by to be The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the , while , it has the petitioner that the proclamation was not appears upon the State is GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.07 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18143 9. was never served with any summons as cases have been and he was not aware of the proceedings in the case dated 20.02.2021. Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. 10. essential steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing official had not publicly read the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned trial Court, impugned order is liable to be set aside 11. abovementioned arguments. He has contended petitioner is a person, who right from the very pendency of criminal proceedings against before the Court and Counsel, in view of above technical defect, if any, which might process of declaring the petitioner 12. 13. record the trial Court, 18143-2026 (O&M) 3 It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner was never served with any summons as he was under impression that his all have been clubbed together in the competent Court at District Ambala and he was not aware of the proceedings in the case dated 20.02.2021. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing had not publicly read the proclamation at a public place. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, due to learned trial Court, in declaring the petitioner to be impugned order is liable to be set aside. The learned State Counsel has abovementioned arguments. He has contended petitioner is a person, who right from the very pendency of criminal proceedings against before the Court and remained absent for Counsel, in view of above, the petitioner technical defect, if any, which might have occurred inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be a proclai The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner ha the copy of statement of executing trial Court, before declaring the petitioner It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner he was under impression that his all together in the competent Court at District Ambala and he was not aware of the proceedings in the case arising out of FIR No.28 As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing proclamation at a public place. As per due to defective procedure adopted by the declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person, the The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. He has contended that in the present case, the petitioner is a person, who right from the very beginning was aware of the pendency of criminal proceedings against him, but opted not to appear for a long time. As per learned State cannot derive any benefit from have occurred inadvertently, in the to be a proclaimed person. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on executing official, recorded by the learned the petitioner to be proclaimed person. The It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner he was under impression that his all together in the competent Court at District Ambala FIR No.28 As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case, the executing proclamation at a public place. As per defective procedure adopted by the , the controverted the present case, the beginning was aware of the , but opted not to appear . As per learned State from the have occurred inadvertently, in the placed on recorded by the learned . The GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.07 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18143 statement of 19.04.2025 14. executing publicly read the contents of 17.07.2025 executing 15. executing 18143-2026 (O&M) 4 statement of executing official, namely 19.04.2025, reads as under:- “Stated that the proclamation of accused Mridul Kapri Mahesh Lal resident of #5272 Sector 31, accused Chetan Sabharwal son of Manohar Singh, r/o #3923, Sector 44-D Chandigarh, accused Balraj Singh son of Satnam Singh, resident of Talwandi Bharo, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar were marked to me. I reached the above said addresses of abovenamed accused persons on 18.04.2025 and affixed the one copy of proclamation on the main gate of house of accused Mirdual Kapri and separate copy of proclamation was affixed at the main procloamation against accused Chetan Sabharwal was affixed on the main gate of his house and another copy was affixed at the main gate of the colony. One copy of proclamation against accused Balraj Singh was affixed on the main and another copy was affixed at the Panchayat Ghat of village Talwandi Bharo and third copies of all proclamations were affixed on the notice board of the Hon’ble Court. Proclamation of above named accused persons Ex.PA, Ex.PB, Ex.PC and reports are Ex.PD, Ex.PE and Ex.PF. I identify my signatures on my reports.” A bare perusal of the above executing official shows that the above- publicly read the contents of abovementioned 17.07.2025 shows that on the basis of above executing official, the petitioner has been declared With regard to the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the executing official, it is relevant to mention , namely ASI Mandeep Singh dated the proclamation of accused Mridul Kapri son of Mahesh Lal resident of #5272-B Sector 47D Chandigarh, P.S. Sector 31, accused Chetan Sabharwal son of Manohar Singh, D Chandigarh, accused Balraj Singh son of Satnam Singh, resident of Talwandi Bharo, Tehsil Nakodar, alandhar were marked to me. I reached the above said addresses of abovenamed accused persons on 18.04.2025 and affixed the one copy of proclamation on the main gate of house of accused Mirdual Kapri and separate copy of proclamation gate of colony. One copy of procloamation against accused Chetan Sabharwal was affixed on the main gate of his house and another copy was affixed at the main gate of the colony. One copy of proclamation against accused Balraj Singh was affixed on the main gate of his house and another copy was affixed at the Panchayat Ghat of village Talwandi Bharo and third copies of all proclamations were affixed on the notice board of the Hon’ble Court. Proclamation of above named accused persons Ex.PA, Ex.PB, Ex.PC and reports are Ex.PD, Ex.PE and Ex.PF. I identify my signatures A bare perusal of the above-mentioned statement of the -named executing official had not abovementioned proclamation. The order dated on the basis of abovementioned statement of the been declared the proclaimed person. mentioned procedure adopted by the , it is relevant to mention here that Section 82(2) of CrPC dated son of B Sector 47D Chandigarh, P.S. Sector 31, accused Chetan Sabharwal son of Manohar Singh, D Chandigarh, accused Balraj Singh son of Satnam Singh, resident of Talwandi Bharo, Tehsil Nakodar, alandhar were marked to me. I reached the above said addresses of abovenamed accused persons on 18.04.2025 and affixed the one copy of proclamation on the main gate of house of accused Mirdual Kapri and separate copy of proclamation gate of colony. One copy of procloamation against accused Chetan Sabharwal was affixed on the main gate of his house and another copy was affixed at the main gate of the colony. One copy of proclamation against gate of his house and another copy was affixed at the Panchayat Ghat of village Talwandi Bharo and third copies of all proclamations were affixed on the notice board of the Hon’ble Court. Proclamation my reports are Ex.PD, Ex.PE and Ex.PF. I identify my signatures mentioned statement of the had not The order dated mentioned statement of the . mentioned procedure adopted by the CrPC GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.07 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18143 lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be a proclaimed person: 16. 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, the offender/proclaimed person is defective. 17. statement of was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., order declaring the above and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 18. Anr.’ CRM 18143-2026 (O&M) 5 lays down that following steps are necessary 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; (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous 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 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 t 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. In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention ement of the executing official nowhere depicts that the proclamation was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., order declaring the abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person is defective and not sustainable in the eyes of law. This Court in the cases of ‘Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & CRM-M-27944 of 2024 and ‘Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a “(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:- shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; 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. t has also been held that in case the above process is not followed in letter order declaring a person to be a proclaimed In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that where depicts that the proclamation was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., and the impugned aid person to be a proclaimed person is defective Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person 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 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 the where depicts that the proclamation was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily impugned aid person to be a proclaimed person is defective Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab’ GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.07 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18143 CRM-M-50704 conspicuous place of the town or resides, as abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been High Court in the cases of 18 and ‘Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab 19. abovementioned fact reading of by the learned be perverse, 20. petition is by the learned quashed. 21. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 18143-2026 (O&M) 6 50704-2024, has observed that conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2) abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been High Court in the cases of ‘Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab’ Taking into consideration the cumulative effect abovementioned factors, as there was a defect in proclamation reading of proclamation in public place, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate perverse, defective and unsustainable in the eyes As a sequel to abovementioned observations petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated learned Additional Chief Judicial Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/ observed that if a proclamation is not read at a village in which such person ordinarily 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 Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State’ AIR 1955 Punjab ’ in CRM-M-21736-2024. ration the cumulative effect was a defect in proclamation, i.e. non , the order dated 17.07.2025 passed Magistrate Sangrur is hereby held to sustainable in the eyes of law. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present the impugned order dated 17.07.2025 passed Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Sangrur is hereby :Yes/No : Yes/No if a proclamation is not read at a village in which such person ordinarily (i)(a), the order declaring the er is defective taken by this Punjab ration the cumulative effect of i.e. non- passed hereby held to present passed is hereby GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.07 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document