[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpal Singh Alias Guggi vs State Of Punjab on 9 December, 2025
1
CRM-
CRM-M-36797-
36797-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-36797-
36797-2025
Harpal Singh alias Guggi
Petitioner
....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Date of reserve: December 04, 2025
Date of pronouncement:
pronouncement: December 09, 2025
Judgment pronounced: Full
Date of Uploading: December 09, 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C.')
P.C.'),, seeking quashing of
impugned order dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P
P-5) passed by the learned
Judge, Special Court, Amritsar, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as
proclaimed person,
person in case FIR No.68 dated 07.07.2018, registered for
commission of offence punishable under Section 21/ 22 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'),, at
Police Station Kamboj, Amritsar Rural.
1 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-36797-
36797-2025
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the
impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed
person, is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated into the present FIR. Learned counsel has argued that the
inability of the petitioner to join the proceedings was not deliberate, but
beyond his control, as after grant of concession of interim bail on 10.10.2018
(Annexure P-2), in the FIR in question, the petitioner had been regularly
appearing, but since the petitioner was arrested in another FIR bearing
No.158 dated 26.06.2020, he could not appear before the concerned Court in
relation to FIR in question. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order
is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is,
therefore, liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned
order has been passed without properly scrutinizing or verifying the
authenticity of the report submitted by the process server. Consequently, the
order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person is unsustainable in the
eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.
3. Learned state counsel has filed short reply by way of an
affidavit dated 03.12.2025 of Yadwinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Sub-Division Attari, Amritsar (Rural), in the Court today, which is
taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said short reply,
learned State counsel opposed the present petition. While refuting the case
set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments were advanced on merits,
contending that the petitioner deliberately absented from the proceedings of
2 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-36797-
36797-2025
the trial without any intimation and thereafter, he could not be arrested and
produced before the learned trial Court despite issuance of repeated bailable
and non-bailable warrants of arrest resulting in cancellation of his bail order
and forfeiture of bail and surety bonds. Consequently, the petitioner has been
rightly declared as proclaimed person, vide impugned order. Learned State
counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been arrested on 14.07.2025 in
relation to another FIR No.109 dated 06.07.2025, registered under Section
21 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Kambo, Amritsar Rural. It has further
been pointed out that the learned Court below scrupulously adhered to the
procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, and no infirmity or irregularity is discernible from the record. Despite
being granted the concession of interim bail, the petitioner willfully chose
not to appear before the trial Court. Consequently, after adopting due
process, the trial Court was constrained to declare him a proclaimed
person. Learned State counsel has, therefore, contended that the conduct of
the petitioner clearly establishes his deliberate defiance of the judicial
process and misuse of the concession of bail. Accordingly, dismissal of the
instant petition has been prayed for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and
carefully perused the record of the case.
5. The law is well settled that no person can be declared a
proclaimed offender/person unless the procedure prescribed under Section
82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is meticulously adhered to. It is
trite law that the provisions of Section 82 are mandatory in nature, and any
3 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-36797-
36797-2025
non-compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings. In the present case,
the petitioner was released on interim bail by the concerned Court and he
was regularly appearing before it. The petitioner has asserted that though he
was arrested in another FIR and, for this reason, could not cause his
appearance. It is further stated that summons were never executed on the
petitioner and he came to know of the proclamation proceedings, in the
present case, only when police officials raided his house. However, the trial
Court vide impugned order dated 06.06.2025 declared the petitioner as
proclaimed person which is not shown to have been executed in conformity
with Section 82 of the Cr. P.C.
6. This Court finds the course adopted by the Court below is
antithesis to the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. The Court below has committed illegality by issuing the said
proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
without compliance of mandatory requirements of law. The learned Court
below, while declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person, failed to satisfy
itself regarding due execution of proclamation and proceeded in a
mechanical manner. Such an order being violative of mandatory provisions
of law, cannot be sustained. Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 reads as under:
"82. Proclamation for person absconding. - (1) If any Court has reason to
believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against
whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing
himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a
written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a
specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such
proclamation.
(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;
4 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-36797-
36797-2025
(b) 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;
(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the court-
house;
(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 in which such
person ordinarily resides.
(3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the
effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the
manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive
evidence that the requirements of this Section have been complied with,
and that the proclamation was published on such day.
[(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of
a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364,
367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459,
or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person fails to
appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the
Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a
proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.
(5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration
made by the Court under sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation
published under sub-section (1).]"
7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with invocation
of the provision of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against an
accused in the case of 'Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal)
319', held as under:
319'
"9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for
issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and
declaring him as proclaimed person/offender may be summarized as
under:-
(i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for
issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first
issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. (See Rohit Kumar v.
State of Delhi: 2008 Crl. J. 2561).
(ii) There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom
warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so that
the warrant of arrest could not be executed against him. However, the
Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a
Proclamation under section 82(1) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. (See Rohit Kumar
v. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561).
(iii) The Court cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of course
because the Police is asking for it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied
that the person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant
of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable
diligence. (See BishundayalMahton and others v. Emperor : AIR 1943
Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ
(Allahabad HC) 1783).
(iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the
proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified
5 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-36797-
36797-2025
place. Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of
issuance and publication of the proclamation. (See Gurappa Gugal and
others v. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. State of
Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (CRIMINAL) 339).
(v) Where the period between issuance and publication of the
proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the
accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the
proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See Dilbagh Singh v.
State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) RCR (CRIMINAL) 166 and Ashok
Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (CRIMINAL) 550)
(vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in
section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to
be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in
which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to
some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused
ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village
and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some
conspicuous part of the Court-house. The three sub-clauses (a)- (c) in
section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 are conjunctive and not disjunctive,
which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation
unless all the three modes of publication are proved. (See Pawan Kumar
Gupta v. The State of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368). Where the Court so orders
a copy of the proclamation has to be additionally published in a daily
newspaper circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily resides.
Advisably, proclamation has to be issued with four copies so that one each
of the three copies of the proclamation may be affixed to some conspicuous
part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides, to
some conspicuous place of such town or village and to some conspicuous
part of the Courthouse and report regarding publication may be made on
the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required
where the proclamation is also required to be published in the newspaper.
(vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the Court as to
the date and mode of publication of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan v.
State: 1958 CriLJ 965).
(viii) The Court issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in
writing in its order that the proclamation was duly published on a specified
day in a manner specified in section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. Such
statement in writing by the Court is declared to be conclusive evidence that
the requirements of Section 82 have been complied with and that the
proclamation was published on such day. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958
CriLJ 965).
(xi) The conditions specified in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for the
publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any
non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an 'irregularity' and renders
the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See
Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and another: 1994 CriLJ
1783 and Pal Singh v. The State: 1955 CriLJ 318)."
8. It is pertinent to mention that it is by now a settled principle of
law that before issuing a proclamation under Section 82 Cr. P.C., the Court
must record its satisfaction that the accused, against whom the proclamation
is sought to be issued, is absconding or concealing himself with intent to
6 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-36797-
36797-2025
evade arrest. This foundational requirement is conspicuously absent in the
present case. A perusal of the impugned order dated 06.06.2025 reveals that
no such satisfaction was recorded by the Court below, nor was there any
material to justify the inference that the petitioner had absconded or was
deliberately avoiding arrest.
9. The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
having serious ramifications qua the right of the accused concerning his
presence in the criminal trial proceedings ought not be and cannot be
invoked in casual and cavalier manner. The requirement of recording of
satisfaction, that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself so that
warrant of his arrest cannot be executed, as embodied in Section 82 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, is to be scrupulously complied with based on
relevant material available on record of the case in that regard. Non-
adherence to said requirement while declaring the accused as proclaimed
person vitiates the proclamation proceedings initiated against the accused.
10. Hence, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. It is, therefore, an
appropriate case for the exercise of powers under Section 528 of
BNSS/Section 482 of Cr. P.C. and to bring to an end the criminal
proceedings initiated in the light of the FIR ibid against the petitioner.
11. In view of the above findings, in the entirety of facts and
circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed and the
impugned order dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned
Judge, Special Court, Amritsar, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as
7 of 8
CRM-
CRM-M-36797-
36797-2025
proclaimed person, in case FIR No.68 dated 07.07.2018, registered for
commission of offence punishable under Section 21/ 22 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), at
Police Station Kamboj, Amritsar Rural as well as the other consequential
proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUMEET GOEL)
GOEL)
JUDGE
December 09,2025
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
8 of 8
