Romins Kumar Alias Romins Alias Romis vs State Of Punjab on 18 April, 2026

S008 PRHCO DSS TT BS

CRM-M-19761-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
115
CRM-M-19761-2026
Date of decision: 18.04.2026

ROMINS KUMAR @ ROMINS @ ROMIS
...-Petitioner
Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB
....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present:- Mr. Kartik Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

3 2k 3k ok 2

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing the impugned order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-2), whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate

Ist Class, Ludhiana has declared the petitioner as a proclaimed person.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR No.127 dated 27.06.2019 under Sections 307, 353, 332, 186, 224, 436, 427, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Division No.7, Ludhiana was registered. He submits that the proclamation was issued on 22.11.2024 fixing 13.12.2024 as the date of appearance, which is less than the mandatory statutory period of 30 days prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. He further submits that the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person on 24.12.2024, without due compliance of the requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. (Section 84 BNSS).

He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial

CRM-M-19761-2026

Court on each and every date of hearing. Hence, he prays for quashing of the

said order.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. S.S. Nahar, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of

respondent-State and supports the impugned order, contending that the petitioner deliberately avoided appearance, leaving the trial Court with no

option but to issue proclamation to secure his presence.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The criminal justice system, though permitting curtailment of

personal liberty, mandates that such deprivation must strictly conform to the procedure established by law. The said procedure must be fair, just, and

reasonable in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-14175-2021 titled "Anita Sharma v. State of Punjab ", date of decision 26.03.2021, has

summarized the essential requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. as under:-

"@) 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 concemed. (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 S:(1) of the CrPC.. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of

(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 MOHTT concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously

CRM-M-19761-2026

issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence. (See Bishundayal Mahton and others v. Emperor: AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. State of U.P: 1994 Crl LJ

(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 place.

Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance an publication of the proclamation. (See GurappaGugal and others v. State of Mysore 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. State of Haryna: 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 335).

(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/person and the proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab (P&I:

2015 (8) RCR (criminal) 166 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 556) (v1) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in Section &:(2) of the CrPC. 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 subclauses

(a)-(¢) in Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P-C. 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 WB.: 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 Couri-house 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. (vil) 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 &2(2)(i) of the CrP-C.. Such statement in writing by the Coutt is declared to be conclusive evidence that the requirements of

CRM-M-19761-2026

Section 82 have been complied with and that the proclamation was published on such day. (See Bitad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ

965).

(x1) The conditions specified in Section &2(2) of the CrP-C. 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 UP. and another 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh v. The State: 1955 CriLJ 318)".

8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the procedure prescribed under section 82 Cr.P.C. (section 84 BNSS) was not complied with. The law is crystal clear that when period between publication of proclamation and specified date of hearing is less than 30 days, accused

cannot be declare Proclaimed person/Person.

9. The object behind issuance of non-bailable warrants or proclamation is only to secure the presence of the accused. In the present case, the petitioner has voluntarily approached this Court and has undertaken

to appear before the trial Court regularly.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-2), declaring the petitioner proclaimed person, is set aside and he is directed to appear before the trial Court within four weeks from today. Upon his doing so, he shall be released on bail subject to furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds

to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

11. Besides, petitioner will also submit an undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial in future and proceedings will not be delayed because of his conduct.

CRM-M-19761-2026

12. It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the

trial court within the stipulated period, this order shall be deemed to be

vacated.

13. The present petition is disposed of accordingly. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 18.04.2026 JUDGE Mohit Bishnoi

i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No

ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No