CRM-M-7413 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT MANJINDER SINGH STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Argued by SURYA P referred to as ‘impugned order’ Judge SBS Nagar challenge in the present petition Section 528 referred to as 2. while holding a trial for the commission of o Sections 307, the petitioner 7413-2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH MANJINDER SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Argued by : Mr. Rubal Pawar, Advocate for Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. The order dated 26.07.2010 referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned Judge SBS Nagar, hereinafter being referred to as challenge in the present petition. The present petition 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita referred to as ‘BNSS’ only. By virtue of abovementioned order, t while holding a trial for the commission of o 307, 326, 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7413-2026 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 07.05.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDEN SURYA PARTAP SINGH for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. (Annexure P-6), hereinafter being passed by the learned Additional Sessions referred to as ‘trial Court’ only, is under . The present petition has been filed under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, hereinafter By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under 326, 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code, declared . (O&M) .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENTS hereinafter being Additional Sessions is under under ereinafter he learned trial Court fence punishable under declared GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7413 3. petitioner Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC abovementioned case trial Court, the learned trial Court forfeited h him. The record shows that issued against the petitioner the petitioner had gone to Italy 4. against the petitioner for against the petitioner had not elapsed and therefore, the case was adjourned to 23.07.2010. Thereafter, on learned P order, dated a proclaimed 5. ground that the impugned deserves to Section 82 of CrPC be a proclaimed alleged by publicly read, as prescribed 7413-2026 (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 Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC abovementioned case when the petitioner did not appear before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner, his bail bonds to the State and issued no The record shows that on various occasions, issued against the petitioner, could not be executed the petitioner had gone to Italy. Subsequently, the learned trial against the petitioner for 10.07.2010. On against the petitioner was received back duly executed, had not elapsed and therefore, the case was adjourned to 23.07.2010. Thereafter, on 23.07.2010, the case was adjourned to 26.07.2010 as the learned Presiding Officer was on leave. dated 26.07.2010, the learned trial Court proclaimed offender. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law deserves to be quashed, because the necessary procedure, prescribed under 82 of CrPC was not complied with proclaimed offender. With regard to above alleged by the petitioner that firstly, b publicly read, as prescribed under the law shell, the facts emerging from record are that the facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, and in the the petitioner did not appear before the learned cancelled the bail of the petitioner, bonds to the State and issued non-bailable warrants against on various occasions, non-bailable warrants could not be executed, as it was recorded that learned trial Court issued proclamation n 10.07.2010, proclamation issued eceived back duly executed, but 30 days period had not elapsed and therefore, the case was adjourned to 23.07.2010. , the case was adjourned to 26.07.2010 as the residing Officer was on leave. Thereafter, by virtue of impugned the learned trial Court declared the petitioner to be The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, and the necessary procedure, prescribed under complied with, while declaring the petitioner With regard to above, it has been specifically because the proclamation was not under the law, secondly, because without issu shell, the facts emerging from record are that the facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under in the the petitioner did not appear before the learned cancelled the bail of the petitioner, bailable warrants against bailable warrants, , as it was recorded that issued proclamation 10.07.2010, proclamation issued 30 days period had not elapsed and therefore, the case was adjourned to 23.07.2010. , the case was adjourned to 26.07.2010 as the by virtue of impugned to be on the and the necessary procedure, prescribed under while declaring the petitioner to , it has been specifically proclamation was not uing GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7413 fresh proc proclaime thirdly because through em 6. 7. on behalf of respondent hereby dispensed with. 8. 9. was never served 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 proclaimed petitioner, one of the basic 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. 10. counsel for to serve process upon the petitioner on of defective procedure adopted by the le petitioner to be 7413-2026 (O&M) 3 clamation for the adjourned da ed offender on the basis of procl because no effort was made to mbassy despite the report that he Notice of motion. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice hereby dispensed with. Heard. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner never served through any process as he was residing in foreign country 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 proclaimed offender. According to le petitioner, one of the basic 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 proclamation at a public place. In addition to above, it has counsel for the petitioner that no effort was made by the learned trial Court to serve process upon the petitioner on his of defective procedure adopted by the le petitioner to be a proclaimed offender, the impugned order is liable to be set ate, the petitioner was declared lamation issued for former date a effect service upon the petitioner e was residing in Italy. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears Hence service of notice upon the State It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner as he was residing in foreign country As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the . According to learned counsel for the , one of the basic steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in official did not publicly read the In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned no effort was made by the learned trial Court his correct address, and that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, in declaring the , the impugned order is liable to be set d a and petitioner appears upon the State is It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner as he was residing in foreign country. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has committed an error, when without following due process it declared the arned counsel for the , one of the basic steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in not publicly read the contended by learned no effort was made by the learned trial Court because declaring the , the impugned order is liable to be set GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7413 aside. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court against the petitioner which was issued on 08.06.2010, the pet offender. 11. abovementioned arguments. He has contended petitioner pendency of criminal proceedings against before the Court and remained absent in view of above defect, if any, which might declaring the petitioner 12. 13. not placed on record order dated 08.06.2010, passed by the learned warrant issued against the petitioner was received back with the report that he had le Executing available at the given address on which warrants/proclamation was issued, and that he was residing abroad. Thus, without invoking the provisions under Section offender. 7413-2026 (O&M) 4 It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court against the petitioner, and that only on the basis of previous proclamation, which was issued on 08.06.2010, the pet The learned State Counsel has abovementioned arguments. He has contended petitioner is the person, who right from the very pendency of criminal proceedings against before the Court and remained absent for long. As per learned State Counsel, in view of above, the petitioner cannot draw defect, if any, which might have occurred inadvertently, in the process of declaring the petitioner to be proclaimed offender The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that placed on record the copy of statement of order dated 08.06.2010, passed by the learned warrant issued against the petitioner was received back with the report that eft the country for Italy. Even as per report submitted by the Executing Constable before the learned trial Court, the petitioner was not available at the given address on which warrants/proclamation was issued, and that he was residing abroad. Thus, without invoking the provisions Section 105 CrPC, the petitioner It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court only on the basis of previous proclamation, which was issued on 08.06.2010, the petitioner was declared proclaimed The learned State Counsel has controverted the abovementioned arguments. He has contended that in the present case, the person, who right from the very beginning, was aware of the pendency of criminal proceedings against him, but opted not to appear for long. As per learned State Counsel, cannot draw any benefit of the technical occurred inadvertently, in the process of offender. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that although the petitioner ha copy of statement of executing official, but, as per order dated 08.06.2010, passed by the learned trial Court, the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner was received back with the report that Even as per report submitted by the Constable before the learned trial Court, the petitioner was not available at the given address on which warrants/proclamation was issued, and that he was residing abroad. Thus, without invoking the provisions petitioner has been declared a proclaimed It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the learned trial Court only on the basis of previous proclamation, declared proclaimed controverted the present case, the aware of the , but opted not to appear for long. As per learned State Counsel, technical occurred inadvertently, in the process of petitioner has , as per bailable warrant issued against the petitioner was received back with the report that Even as per report submitted by the Constable before the learned trial Court, the petitioner was not available at the given address on which warrants/proclamation was issued, and that he was residing abroad. Thus, without invoking the provisions proclaimed GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7413 14. executing lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be a proclaimed person: 15. it has been repeatedly observed by this 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. 16. statement of read over at a public pl as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., 7413-2026 (O&M) 5 With regard to the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the xecuting official, it is relevant to mention 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 house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of 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 t the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.” With regard to mandatory nature of above it has been repeatedly observed by this abovementioned provisions of Section 82(2) of It 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 executing official nowhere depicts that the proclamation was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily reside, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., mentioned procedure adopted by the , it is relevant to mention here that Section 82(2) of CrPC lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a “(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; 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. It 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 the where depicts that the proclamation was ace in the area where the petitioner ordinarily reside, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C., and the impugned order mentioned procedure adopted by the CrPC lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous hinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such mentioned procedure, Court, that the compliance of is mandatory in nature. in letter order declaring a person to be a proclaimed that the where depicts that the proclamation was ace in the area where the petitioner ordinarily reside, impugned order GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7413 declaring the above not sustainable in the eyes of law. 17. Anr.’ CRM 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 18 and ‘Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab 18. abovementioned fact proclamation hereby held to be 19. petition is by the learned trial Court 20. of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail had been cancelled and learned trial Court with regard to cancellation of bail and issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the 7413-2026 (O&M) 6 declaring the abovesaid persons to be proclaimed person 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 50704-2024, has observed that conspicuous place of the town or village in which such perso 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, the order dated 26.07.2010 hereby held to be perverse, defective and As a sequel to abovementioned observations petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated by the learned trial Court is hereby quashed It is however made clear that this order is with regard to legality of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail been cancelled and the bonds were learned trial Court with regard to cancellation of bail and issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the to be proclaimed persons is defective and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab 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. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the was a defect in the process passed by the learned trial Court is defective and unsustainable in the eyes of law. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, the present the impugned order dated 26.07.2010 passed is hereby quashed. It is however made clear that this order is with regard to legality of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail forfeited to the State, the order of learned trial Court with regard to cancellation of bail and issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the is defective and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab’ if a proclamation is not read at a n ordinarily (i)(a), the order declaring the offender is defective taken by this Punjab of the of learned trial Court is of law. present passed It is however made clear that this order is with regard to legality of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail forfeited to the State, the order of learned trial Court with regard to cancellation of bail and issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-7413 petitioner surrenders b month from today petitioner into custody Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 Cr.P.C However, the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case of three days. 21. disposed of Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 7413-2026 (O&M) 7 petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court month from today, the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the petitioner into custody or proceed under Section 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 Cr.P.C , in case the petitioner surrenders and file the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case days. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand d of, accordingly. Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/ efore the learned trial Court within a period of one , the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the under Section 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 Cr.P.C), as per law in case the petitioner surrenders and files an application for bail the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case not beyond the period Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand :Yes/No : Yes/No within a period of one , the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the under Section 491 of the Bharatiya , as per law. an application for bail, period Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.07 18:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document