Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032516
121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12724-2025
Date of decision: 07.03.2025
SATNAM SINGH
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Angad Chahal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
(through video conferencing)
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (ORAL)
1. This is the first petition filed under Section 528 Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),
(BNSS), 2023 seeking quashing of impugned order
dated 01.08.2022 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Zira
(Annexure P-1),
1), whereby the petitioner was dec
declared as proclaimed offender
in case stemming from FIR No.8 dated 17.02.2020 registered under Sections
379-B,
B, 411, 201, 409, 120-B
120 B IPC at Police Station City Zira.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was
granted regular bail by this
this Court on 13.07.2020
13.07.2020. Thereafter, on account of
Covid-19
19 pandemic,
pandemic, the case stood adjourned from 30.09.2020 to 11.11.2020.
Thereafter, due to unavoidable circumstances, he could not appear before the
trial Court. Due to which, the trial Court vide order dated 01.08.2022, declared
the petitioner as proclaimed offender.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
proclamation was issued against the petitioner without following the drill of
Section 82 Cr.P.C. and non-compliance
non compliance of the mandatory provisions vitiates
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032516
CRM-M-12724
the entire proceedings,
proceedings which suffers from incurable illegality as he was never
served and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr.. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab
Punjab, who is present in the Court,
accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State
respondent State and supports the order passed by
the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in
appearance before the trial Court
Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore,
having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure his
presence.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case with their able assistance, the matter is taken up for final
disposal.
7. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates
curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance
that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain
a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual
individual-accused and
interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be
compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just
and not suffer from the vice
vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued
proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has
absconded or is concealing himself. This Court in the judgment pa
passed in
Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406;
2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 has held that the Court is first required to record its
satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non
non-
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032516
CRM-M-12724
recording of the satisfaction
satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable
illegality. In the judgment passed by this Court in Sonu Vs. State of Haryana
2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319,
319, it has been held that the con
conditions specified in
Section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a proclamation against an
absconder are mandatory. Any non-compliance
non compliance therewith cannot be cured as
an 'irregularity' and renders the proclamation and proceedings subsequent
thereto a nullity.
9. The sole purpose of issuance of non
non-bailable warrants or issuance
of proclamation is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The
petitioner in the present case has himself come forward.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of
the ratio of law laid down in Major Singh
h @ Major (supra), the present
petition is allowed qua the impugned order dated 01.08.2022 (Annexure P-
1), vide which, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender is
quashed.
11. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a
period of two weeks from today and on his doing so, he shall be admitted to
bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
trial Court, along with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Poor
Patients Welfare Funds, PGIMER, Chandigarh for wasting precious time
of the Court.
12. Receipt of payment of cost must be presented before learned trial
Court and learned trial Court is directed to verify
verify the same.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032516
CRM-M-12724
13. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to appear before
the trial Court within a stipulated period, the interim protection granted by this
Court shall be deemed to be vacated.
(HARPREET
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
BRAR)
March 07, 2025
5 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
