[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rinku Alias Rocky vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2026

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH
                     129
                                                                             CRM-M-23575-2026
                                                                             Decided on : 29.04.2026

                     Rinku @ Rocky                                                        . . . Petitioner
                                                          Versus
                     State of Punjab                                                 . . . Respondents

                     CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
                     PRESENT: Ms. Rubi Khokhare, Advocate for
                              Mr. Malkiat S. Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                             Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.
                                                   ****
                     SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS

petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 07.01.2026(Annexure P-5),

whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed Person/offender in case

FIR No. 193 dated 22.09.2024, under Sections 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act,

registered at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR No. 193

dated 22.09.2024 (Annexure P-1/T) was registered on the basis of

information received from a secret informer, alleging that petitioner, along

with other co-accused, is involved in the business of selling illicit liquor.

It is further submitted that petitioner was granted the concession

of regular bail vide order dated 19.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) and thereafter

continued to appear regularly before the learned Trial Court. Challan was

subsequently presented on 27.01.2025, and charges were framed on

28.01.2025, as reflected in the zimini order dated 28.01.2025 (Annexure P-

3).

3. Learned counsel submits that due to certain miscommunication

between the petitioner and his counsel, petitioner could not appear before the

learned Trial Court on 04.03.2025 and 01.04.2025. Counsel submits that the

said absence was neither deliberate nor intentional, nor with any intent to

evade the process of law. However, on account of the said non-appearance,

the bail of the petitioner was cancelled, bail bonds and surety bonds were

forfeited, and thereafter non-bailable warrants (NBWs) were issued against

him. Subsequently, repeated NBWs were also issued, as reflected in the

zimini orders dated 04.03.2025 to 15.12.2025 (Annexure P-4).

Thereafter, proclamation proceedings under Section 84 of the

BNSS were initiated against the petitioner on 10.10.2025, fixing 13.11.2025

as the returnable date. However, same were not properly served upon the

petitioner and were again re-issued for 15.12.2025. It is submitted that on

15.12.2025, proclamation was stated to have been effected, and the case was

adjourned to 07.01.2026. On the said date, petitioner was declared

proclaimed person vide impugned order dated 07.01.2026 (Annexure P-5).

4. Learned counsel contends that the learned Trial Court failed to

appreciate that no proper service of proclamation was effected upon the

petitioner, and no proclamation was affixed at his residence. The impugned

order has been passed in a mechanical manner without due compliance of the

mandatory statutory requirements under Section 82 Cr.P.C./corresponding

provisions of BNSS.

It is further submitted that the petitioner was not intentionally

absconding, and the mere fact that his house was found locked at the relevant

time does not, by itself, establish willful evasion of the process of law. The

impugned order, therefore, has been passed without due application of mind

and is liable to be set aside.

It is also submitted that the petitioner is involved in other

FIRs/cases as per his own disclosure; however, he is stated to be on bail in

those matters, as specifically mentioned in para 12 of the petition. The

petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person only in the present case.

Learned counsel further submits that after the petitioner was

declared a proclaimed person, no further consequential action has been taken,

including registration of any FIR under Section 209 of the BNS

(corresponding to Section 174-A IPC).

The petitioner, being declared a proclaimed person, apprehends

his arrest. However, he is ready and willing to surrender before the learned

Trial Court and join the proceedings in the present case to facilitate its early

conclusion, and undertakes to fully cooperate with the trial.

It is further submitted that the petitioner's absence before the

learned Trial Court was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to

the reasons explained hereinabove.

Lastly, learned counsel submits that if one more opportunity is

granted to the petitioner by extending protection from arrest, he undertakes to

remain present in all future proceedings, except with prior permission of the

Court, and shall fully cooperate for the expeditious conclusion of the trial.

5. Notice of motion.

6. On asking of the Court, Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, 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 07.01.2026(Annexure P-5), whereby 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 15.05.2026.

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

satisfaction of the trial Court. In addition, petitioner shall submit a specific