Rajveer Singh Alias Rajbir Singh Alias ... vs State Of Punjab And Another
2026 Latest Caselaw 1565 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajveer Singh Alias Rajbir Singh Alias ... vs State Of Punjab And Another on 18 February, 2026

                     CRM-M-43951
                           43951-2025 (O&M)          8587                   1

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
                                              CHANDIGARH


                     104-II                                          CRM-M-43951-2025 (O&M)
                                                                     DECIDED ON: 18.02.2026

                     RAJVEER SINGH @RAJBIR SINGH @RAJA

                                                                                  .....PETITIONER
                                                            VERSUS

                     STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

                                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
                                                                             .....RESPONDENT


                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P
                                                      PARTAP SINGH

                     Present:     Mr. G.S. Jagpal, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                  Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

                     SURYA PARTAP
                           P      SINGH, J. (ORAL)

The order dated 02.07.2014 (Annexure P-12),, hereinafter being

referred to as 'impugned order', order' passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge Ferozepur, Ferozepur hereinafter being referred to as "trial Court"

Court", is under

challenge in the present petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Sanhita 2023, hereinafter ereinafter referred to as ""BNSS" only.

2. By virtue of abovementioned order, tthe he learned trial Court, Court

while holding a trial for the commission of ooffence ffence punishable under

Sections 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27/30 of Arms Act, Act

declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person.

4. In nut-shell, shell, the facts emerging from record are that the

petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under

Sections 307/34 of IPC and Sections 25/27/30 of Arms Act and in the

CRM-M-43951

abovementioned case, case, he was on bail, but later on when he could not appear

before the learned trial Court on 01.05.2013, the learned trial Court

cancelled the bail of the petitioner and is issued sued warrant of arrest. Thereafter,

on various occasions, non-bailable non bailable warrants were issued, however, the same

could not be executed as the petitioner had left the country for a foreign

destination destination.

5. Subsequently, vide order dated 05.05.2014, the learned trial

Court issued proclamation against the petitioner for 20.05.2014.. Thereafter,

vide order dated 20.05.2014, proclamation issued against the petitioner

received back duly effected and the learned trial Court adjourned the case for

03.06.2014 for for recording of statement of executing Constable. Subsequently

vide order dated 03.06.2014, statement of executing Constable was recorded

and the case was adjourned for 02.07.2014 for appearance of petitioner.

Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order, the pe petitioner titioner was declared a

proclaimed offender.

6. Notice of motion.

7. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State,

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears on behalf of

respondent respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed

with.

8. Heard.

9. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned

trial Court has committed an error, error when without following due process, it

declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. It has been further

CRM-M-43951

contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case,

proclamation issued against the petitioner is defective in view of the fact that

the proclamation for 20.05.2014 was issued by the le learned arned trial Court on

05.05.2014. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the period of 30 days 05.05.2014.

prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was not afforded to the petitioner, for

appearance in the Court.

Court. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for

the petitioner that in this case, no fresh proclamation was issued by the

learned trial Court against the petitioner and only on the basis of previous

proclamation, which was issued on 05.05.2014, the petitioner has been

declared proclaimed offender.

10. In addition to above, it has also been alleged by the petitioner

that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, in

declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender, the impugned order is

liable to be set aside.

11. Per contra,, the learned State Cou Counsel

12. The record has been perused carefully.

CRM-M-43951

13. A perusal erusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on

record the copy of statement of the Executing Constable recorded by the

learned trial Court, before passing the order of declaring the petitioner to be

a proclaimed offender. The statement of Exe Executing Constable, namely Rattan

Singh dated 03.06.2014 reads as under:-

"In In the present case I was marked proclamation pertaining to Rajbir Singh @Raja son of Baldev Singh r/o Itta Wali, PS Ghall Khurd. The said proclamation is Ex.PA. It was marked to me by SHO on 18.05.2014. On 19.05.2014, I went to the concerned area and pasted one copy of proclamation on the main gate of the house of Rajbir Singh, one copy was pasted at the common place and one copy was given to Granthi of Gurdawara Sahib and was deputed d to make announcement on the speaker. Report in this regard is Ex.PB. Proclamation is Ex.PA.'

14. A perusal of record further shows shows:-

(a) that the learned trial Court declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender on the basis of affixation of proclamation issued for appearance on 20.05.2014 20.05.2014,, whereas as per laid down procedure, if the statement of Executing Constable was recorded on 03.06.2014 and on that day the accused was not declared a proclaimed offender, and case was adjourned for next date, i.e. for 02.07.2014 02.07.2014, a fresh proclamation for 02.07.2014 should have been issued;

(b) that from the date of affixation of proclamation at least 30 days' time should have been afforded to the petitioner to appear before the Court, but in the instant case, the date fixed for appearance before the Court was 20.05.2014 and as per report of serving Constable, the proclamation was affixed on 19.05.2014; and

CRM-M-43951

(c) that the statement of Executing Constable Rattan Singh dated 19.05.2014 shows that he had not publicly read the abovementioned proclamation proclamation.

15. A bare perusal of the above abovementioned mentioned statement of the

Executing Constable shows that the above above-named named Executing Constable had

not publicly read the contents of the proclamation. The order dated

02.07.2014 further shows that merely rely on the basis of above abovementioned mentioned

statement of the Executing Executing Constable, the petitioner has been declared a

proclaimed person.

16. With regard to the above-mentioned mentioned procedure adopted by the

learned trial Court, Court, it is relevant to mention that Section 82(2) of CrPC lays

down that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a

person to be a proclaimed person:-

person:

"(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:

follows:-

(i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;

(b) it shalll be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;

(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court Court-house;

(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides."

17. With regard rd to mandatory nature of above abovementioned mentioned procedure,

it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of

abovementioned provisions of Section 82(2) (2) of CrPC is mandatory in nature.

CRM-M-43951

It has also been held that in case the above process is not followed in letter

and spirit, the impugned order declaring a person to be a proclaimed

offender/proclaimed person is defective.

18. In this regard in the case of ''Tirlok Tirlok Chand Vs. State of Haryana' Haryana

2023(2) Law Herald 1545, 1545, this High Court observed that if a proclamation is

issued for appearance of of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on

that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh

proclamation should be issued. Similar Similar view has been taken in the cases of

'Jarnail Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Another Another' (CRM-M-27944 27944 of 2024,

decided on 04.09.2024) and 'Gagandeep Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab Punjab' (CRM--M-

50704- 2024, decided on 28.11.2024).

28.11.2024)

19. With regard to failure of learned trial Court to give 30 days'

time to the accused to appear before the Court after proc proclamation, lamation, this Court

in the case of 'Avtar 'Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.' in CRM CRM-M-1866 1866-

2017 has observed as under:-

under:

"The above quoted provision is clear that through the proclamation made prior to declaration of a person as a proclaimed offender, he should be given not less than thirty days from the date of its proclamation to appear at a specified place and a specified time.

In the case in hand, thirty days were not given to the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court as the proclamation was made on 13.05.2011 requiring him to appear before the Trial Court on 14.05.2011. Thus, the proclamation and the subsequent order der dated 03.09.2011 (Annexure P P-2) declaring the petitioner tioner to be a proclaimed offender der do not confirm with the mandate of Section 82 (1) of the Code.

CRM-M-43951

20. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the

abovementioned observations,, as there was a defect in affixation of

proclamation i.e. non-reading proclamation, reading of summons in public place place, and not affording

30 days' period to the petitioner to appear before the Court aafter fter affixation of

proclamation, the order dated 02.07.2014 passed by the learned trial Court is

hereby held to be perverse, defective and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

Resultantly, the present petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order

dated 02.07.2014 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby quashed.

21. It is however made clear that this order is with regard to legality

of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail

had been cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the State, the order of

learned trial Court with regard to cancellation of bail and issuan issuance ce of warrant

of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the

petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court within a period of two

weeks from today, today, the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take the

petitioner into i custody or proceed under Section 491 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 Cr.P.C) Cr.P.C),, as per law.

law

However,, in case the petitioner surrenders and file files an application for bail, bail

the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case not beyond the period

of three days.

                     Gaurav Thakur
                                     Whether speaking/reasoned          :Yes/No
                                     Whether reportable                 : Yes/No