Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prabhjot Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 November, 2025
CRM-M-49798-2025 1
128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-49798-2025
Date of Decision: 20.11.2025
PRABHJOT SINGH ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. Rajiv Rathor, Advocate for
Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been instituted under Section 528 of
BNNS, 2023 for quashing order dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-18)
passed by learned Judge Special Court, Hoshiarpur whereby the
petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed offender in case FIR No.47
dated 16.04.2021 under Section 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at
Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiapur (Annexure P-1).
2. Both the parties have been heard and material placed on the
file has been perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner has been wrongly been declared as a proclaimed offender. The
marriage of the petitioner got solemnized on 06.12.2024 and he got busy
1 of 7
in performing all the religious rites and ceremonies of the marriage and
thus, was unable to appear before the Trial Court 13.12.2024. The learned
Trial Court cancelled his bail on the same day and non-bailable warrants
were issued without issuing notice. On the next date i.e. on 25.02.2025,
petitioner could not appear before the Trial Court as his wife was bed
ridden and on the same day, proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were
initiated. On 28.05.2025, the petitioner did not appear again due to ill
health of his wife and was declared a proclaimed offender. Learned
counsel contended that proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been
initiated in haste and proper procedure has not been followed while
declaring him proclaimed offender and impugned order is liable to be set
aside.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel argued that
petitioner could not be served when his non-bailable warrants were issued
and thereafter, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C was ordered to be
issued and he was declared a proclaimed offender. Learned State counsel
contended that impugned order is well reasoned and speaking and does
not call for interference and petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. A perusal of the record shows that challan was presented
before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge on 26.10.2021 and the case
was adjourned for consideration on charge. Thereafter, charge was
framed and case was adjourned for prosecution evidence and accused
continuously kept on appearing before the Trial Court till 23.10.2024.
However, he absented on 13.12.2024 and his bail was cancelled and
arrest warrants were issued and following order was passed:-
"Accused has not appeared today despite calling the
2 of 7
case several times since morning, neither any
exemption application has been moved by his counsel.
The perusal of file reveals that accused was granted
bail by the court of Sh. Dr. Gopal Arora, the then
Judge Special Court Hoshiarpur vide order dated
3.5.2021. Since accused has failed to turned up today
in court. therefore, bail order dated 3.5.2021 stands
cancelled and bail bonds and surety bonds also stands
cancelled and forfeited to the State. Let non bailable
warrants of accused be issued for 25.2.2025. Notice to
his surety and identifying witnesses be also issued.
Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur
UID NO. PB00141"
6. Thereafter, on the adjourned date, proceedings under Section
82 Cr.P.C were initiated and following order was passed on 25.02.2025
and proclamation was ordered to be issued for 28.05.2025.
"Non bailable warrants of accused received back
unexecuted. From the report, this court is satisfied
that accused Prabhjot Singh has gone somewhere
without any prior intimation or permission of this
court. This court has reason to believe that accused is
intentionally absconding or concealing himself so that
warrants cannot be executed. Proclamation
proceedings against Prabhjot Singh be started and in
view of judgment dated 12.12.2022, passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CRM-M-
8721-2019 titled as Jagjit Singh @Jaggi Vs. State of
Punjab, proclamation of accused Prabhjot Singh be
issued under section 82 Cr.P.C. for 28.5.2025 with the
direction to serving official to affix the proclamation
on or before 10.4.2025 and get his statement recorded
on 28.5.2025 in the court, in regard to compliance of
three conditions enumerated under section 82 (2) (I)
3 of 7
Cr.P.C. Ahlmad is directed to issue proclamation well
in time. Proclamation is issued regarding the accused
to appear before this court on 28.5.2025. Notice to his
surety and identifying witnesses be again issued for
the date fixed.
Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur
UID NO. PB00141"
7. On 28.05.2025, petitioner was declared a proclaimed
offender and following order was passed:-
"Proclamation issued for the service of accused
Prabhjot Singh was received back duly effected on
20.3.2025. The serving official ASI Malkit Singh has
also made his statement while proving the
proclamation as Ex A1 and his report is Ex A2.
Statutory period of more than 30 days has been
expired but the accused has not put in appearance. As
such, accused Prabhjot Singh is declared as
Proclaimed offender. Intimation in this regard be sent
to SHO concerned. The concerned SHO is further
directed to initiate proceedings under section 174-A of
IPC against the accused. The Ld. APP for the State
closed the prosecution evidence under section 299
Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the file be consigned to record
room. The proceedings against the accused be
initiated as and when he is arrested or produced
before the court.
Judge, Special Court, Hoshiarpur
UID NO. PB00141"
8. In this manner, petitioner absented on 13.12.2024 and his
bail was cancelled and case was adjourned to 25.05.2025 on which date
arrest warrant was received back unexecuted Trial Court observed that
4 of 7
petitioner/accused has gone somewhere without any prior intimation or
permission of the Court and the Court has reason to believe that accused
is intentionally absconding or concealing himself so that warrants cannot
be executed and initiated the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
However, order has been passed that the proclamation should be read
publicly in the area where accused ordinarily resides. Even otherwise, no
serious efforts were made to secure his presence by issuing arrest
warrants and arrest warrant was issued only for a single date and on the
next date, proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated. It is not
even mentioned in the order dated 25.02.2025 as to why the warrant was
received back unexecuted. As such, Trial Court did not apply its mind
while coming to the conclusion that accused has intentionally absconded
or he is concealing himself to avoid the warrants and entire proceedings
have been conducted in haste without taking into consideration the fact
that he had been regularly appearing from the date of presentation of
challan till he absented on 13.12.2024. A Coordinate Bench of this Court
while deciding CRM-M-41656-2023 titled Pardeep Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana has held that before issuance of proclamation under Section 82
of Cr.P.C., the Court must deliberate on its previous efforts to secure
presence of the accused through other legally permissible means. These
efforts encompass issuance of summons and the execution of bailable
and/or non-bailable warrants against the accused. It is incumbent upon
the Court to ascertain that individual in question has indeed absconded or
is concealing himself to evade execution of warrants of arrest. It has been
further held that phrase, 'reasons to believe' as articulated in Section 82
of Cr.P.C. signifies that the Court must derive its belief from the
5 of 7
available evidence and material that the concerned person has absconded
or is concealing himself to evade the execution of warrants of arrest. As
such proper procedure has not been followed and proceedings have been
conducted in haste and on this account only, the proceedings are liable to
be quashed.
9. Besides this, in the order dated 25.02.2025, it is no where
ordered that the proclamation has to be read publicly in some
conspicuous place of the town where the accused ordinarily resides. Even
in the order dated 28.05.2025 when petitioner was declared a proclaimed
offender, it is not recorded that the serving constable has published the
proclamation publicly in some conspicuous place of the town where the
accused ordinarily resided. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in 2022 (1)
Law Herald 219 titled 'Rahul Dureja and another Vs. State of Punjab'
has held that if there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of
Section 82(2)(i)(a) of Cr.P.C. and proclamation is not read publicly in
some conspicuous place of the town or village where the accused
ordinarily resides, the accused is deprived of the knowledge of
proclamation and on this score, the proclamation notice is liable to be
quashed. In 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 493 titled 'Harvinder Singh Vs.
State of Haryana and another' it has been further held that if
proclamation is not read publicly in the village where accused resided, it
is not an irregularity but it renders proclamation and subsequent
proceedings as nullity. On this score also, the proceedings initiated under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner are invalid. As such, proper
procedure has not been followed while declaring petitioner a proclaimed
offender and the impugned order, thus, suffers from material
6 of 7
irregularities and illegalities and the same is, thus, not sustainable and is
liable to be set aside.
10. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the present petition is
accepted and the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure P-18),
vide which, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender is set aside.
11. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
JUDGE
20.11.2025
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
