[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 18 April, 2026

                      CRM-M-20653-2026                                         1

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH
                      111                                CRM-M-20653-2026
                                                        Decided on : 18.04.2026


                      Amar Singh                                               ......Petitioner


                                                       Versus


                      State of Punjab and another
                                                                              ......Respondent

                      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH


                      Present:     Mr. Krishan Kanha, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                   Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

                                                        ****
                      SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the

BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC) for the quashing of the

impugned order dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, in the case titled "State of

Punjab v. Amar Singh," bearing No. CHI-685-2023 filed on 29.08.2023,

arising out of FIR No. 84 dated 31.03.2022 registered under Sections

325, 323 and 34 IPC at Police Station Canal Colony, District Bathinda

(Annexure P-1), vide which bailable warrants of arrest of the petitioner

have been issued; along with order dated 18.02.2026 (Annexure P-6),

vide which the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled, bail bonds have

been forfeited, and proclamation has been issued; further along with

order dated 23.02.2026 (Annexure P-7), vide which again the bail of the

petitioner has been cancelled, bail bonds have been cancelled and

forfeited, and proclamation has been issued; and also the impugned order

dated 30.03.2026 (Annexure P-12), vide which the petitioner has been

declared a proclaimed person, along with all consequential proceedings

arising therefrom

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the

present case, the FIR was registered and the challan was presented on

29.08.2023, pursuant to which the petitioner was granted bail on

27.10.2023. Thereafter, charges were framed on 17.07.2024, and the trial

commenced. PW-1 was partly examined on 10.01.2025. It is further

submitted that bailable warrants were issued against witness Sachin

Kumar on 06.08.2025 and against ASI Gurdeep Singh on 24.09.2025,

followed by fresh warrants on 09.10.2025 and 10.11.2025, while PW-2

and PW-3 were partly examined on 10.11.2025. During the entire period

from 29.08.2023 to 10.11.2025, the petitioner remained present before

the learned Trial Court, either in person or through counsel, as is evident

from the zimni orders (Annexure P-2).

3. It is further submitted that petitioner could not appear before

the learned Trial Court on 08.12.2025, whereupon notice was issued for

13.01.2026 (Annexure P-3). Although the petitioner had duly instructed

his counsel to seek an adjournment and file an exemption application, but

same could not be filed due to inadvertent miscommunication. It is

further submitted that on 13.01.2026, the petitioner again could not

appear as he had been deputed for official work at Old Nabha Jail. The

petitioner had informed his counsel accordingly, and an application for

exemption was duly prepared and sought to be filed; however, the learned

Trial Court declined to accept the same on the ground that warrants had

already been ordered to be issued (Annexure P-4).

4. Learned counsel further submits that despite the exemption

application having been tendered, the same was not taken on record, and

even though the notice issued to the petitioner was received back

unserved, instead of issuing fresh notice, learned Trial Court proceeded

to issue bailable warrants of arrest vide order dated 13.01.2026

(Annexure P-5). It is further submitted that on 18.02.2026, counsel for

the petitioner again apprised the Court of the circumstances and sought

an opportunity for the petitioner's appearance; however, as the bailable

warrants were received back unserved, learned Trial Court, instead of

issuing non-bailable warrants, proceeded to cancel the bail of the

petitioner, forfeit the bail bonds, and further issued proclamation for

25.03.2026, which is wholly unjustified and contrary to settled law

(Annexure P-6).

In these circumstances, petitioners pray for the setting aside

of the orders dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure P-5), 18.02.2026 (Annexure

P-6), 23.02.2026 (Annexure P-7), and 30.03.2026 (Annexure P-12),

along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

5. Notice of motion.

6. On asking of the Court, Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab,

who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.

A copy of the complete paper book has been supplied to him

by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Learned State counsel opposes the request of the petitioner,

and submits that petitioner has willfully remained absent from the

proceedings of learned Trial Court and thus, does not deserve any sympathy.

Therefore, petitioner should be directed to surrender before the Court and to

face trial.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

relevant material on record. It is evident that petitioner is inclined to join

the process of law, and by way of present petition, he is seeking one chance

to join the proceedings before the learned Trial Court, by abiding to the

terms and conditions.

9. In number of cases, wherein, accused stopped appearing in

criminal cases, the Courts are compelled to declare accused as

'Proclaimed Person/Proclaimed Offender'. After examining the facts, this

Court has formulated a uniform method to ensure the presence of accused

before the concerned Court, to enable it to proceed further instead of

delaying the proceedings by awaiting the presence of accused.

Intentional or unintentional default of the accused can be

dealt with by examining the facts from case to case involved, and where

it is realized that absence or prolonged absence of such accused is

intentional to evade the process of law, he/she can be penalized

examining the nature of crime in which he is facing the proceedings and

thereupon by imposing some cost amount subject to his/her capacity to

pay.

Primary object of every Court is only to examine the

commission of crime in question before it vis a vis the person/accused,

who is subjected to such proceedings, and if possible justice be imparted

at the earliest without unnecessary delay. It is not expected that undue

time would be devoted in securing the presence of absconded accused

and also to waste energy by enforcing the special mechanism to arrest

such accused.

Considering all such aspects, this Court in the case of

Ashish Kumar Honda @ Ashish Handa Vs. State of Punjab, 2022 (4)

RCR (criminal) 765; Law Finder Doc Id # 20238111 considered similar

plea of appearance, expressed at the instance of the accused, who failed

to appear before the Court at appropriate time, and observed that:

"paramount consideration of the Court is to secure presence of accused on each and every date for speeding up the trial for its final conclusion. Already Courts are flooded with so much litigation, resulting in slow pace of work, because of more than one reason. The required energy and manpower be used for expediting the proceedings of the Court, instead of running after the accused persons to get hold of them."

Again, this Court has considered the aforementioned similar

plea in case Veena @ Veena Devi v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-2206-

2025, decided on 16.01.2025).

10. In the totality of circumstances, I am of the view that the

petitioner may be granted one opportunity to appear before the trial Court

so that the proceedings can recommence and continue smoothly.

Accordingly, the plea of the petitioner is accepted to the extent of setting

aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2026(Annexure P-12), whereby the

petitioner was declared a 'proclaimed person/offender.' Petitioner is

directed to be released on bail upon his surrender before the trial Court

on or before 07.05.2026.

11. Petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to