[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gursimranjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2026
-1-
CRM-M-14671-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
175 CRM-M-14671-2026 (O & M)
Date of decision: 19.03.2026
Gursimranjeet Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present : Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS
for quashing of order dated 14.08.2023, Annexure P10, passed by Ld.
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sunam in case No.CHI/172/2019 in FIR
No.116 dated 04.08.2018, registered at Police Station Chhajli, District
Sangrur, vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person; and
order dated 24.03.2023, Annexure P7, whereby his bail bonds/surety bonds
have been cancelled.
2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was granted
interim bail on 29.08.2018 which was made absolute vide order dated
07.12.2018, Annexure P5. Challan was presented on 02.09.2019 and she
had furnished his bail bonds, whereafter, charges were framed on
16.03.2020 and the case was adjourned for 09.04.2020, however, due to
Covid-19 pandemic, it was adjourned again and again till 25.11.2021. Thus,
she went to Italy to get married to a boy residing there on 21.06.2020 and
CRM-M-14671-2026
returned on 30.09.2021. On 25.11.2021, she appeared and case was
adjourned for prosecution evidence for 23.12.2021. However, she due to
matrimonial reasons, went again to Italy on 23.08.2022 and could not
appear on 01.09.2022 and as such, her bail was cancelled on 24.03.2023
and bail bonds were forfeited to the State, leading to issuance of non-
bailable warrants and declared proclaimed person on 14.08.2023 while she
was in Italy for which passport entries are relied upon as Annexure P12,
hence, the Court had passed the same without recording its subjective
satisfaction that she had absconded and concealing herself as is the
requirement under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Thus, the procedure mandated under
Sections 41, 105 and 82 Cr.P.C. had not been followed. A further reference
is made to a Notification issued by the Government of India Ministry of
Home Affairs, IS Division-II:Legal Cell New Delhi, dated the 11th Feb,
2009, laying down comprehensive guidelines in this regard of reciprocal
arrangements to be made by Central Government with the Foreign
Governments with regard to the service of summons/warrants/judicial
processes. The Ministry of Home Affairs has entered into Mutual Legal
Assistance Treaty/Agreements with 22 countries which provide for serving
of documents. Thus, the proclamation proceedings being in violation
thereof are liable to be set aside, however, he is ready and willing to join
the proceedings and surrender before the trial Court for which she seeks
only one opportunity, which may even be subject to imposition of costs or
any other conditions, which this Court may deem appropriate. It is also
noted that Co-accused has been acquitted vide judgment dated 10.12.2025,
Annexure P11, as the entire amount stands paid.
CRM-M-14671-2026
3. Learned State counsel submits that the order passed against
the petitioner is legal and valid on account of the fact that she had absented
from the proceedings before the trial Court without any just cause.
4. Heard.
5. In Gurbir Singh Mundi vs. State of Punjab and another,
CRM-M-49283-2021, decided on 16.12.2021, it was held that provisions
of Section 82(2) Cr.PC. are to be mandatorily complied with cumulatively
and not alternatively. The Court had quashed the order declaring the
petitioner therein as proclaimed person on the ground that declaration was
not read publicly in some conspicuous place of town or village, in which
the accused ordinarily resides.
6. In Sonu vs. State of Haryana, 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319, it
was held that any non-compliance in the procedure prescribed in declaring
a proclaimed person, cannot be treated as an irregularity but the same
renders such proceedings a nullity.
7. This Court in Satvir Singh vs. State of Punjab and another,
CRM-M-27621-2025, 20.05.2025, while relying on Rohit Kumar vs.
State of Delhi 2008 Crl. J. 2561, has held that Court must be prima facie
satisfied that the person absconded or is concealed himself so that warrant
of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite due diligence.
8. The very purpose of issuance of summons, warrants etc. is to
compel and secure the presence of the accused to face trial and establish
the rule of law so as to ensure finalization of the proceedings.
9. Reverting to the facts of the present case inasmuch as it was
because the petitioner had moved abroad, prior to the passing of the
impugned order and the procedure as envisaged by the Code not followed
CRM-M-14671-2026
in letter and spirit, he could not be served and as such, her explanation for
absence appears to be justified.
10. Considering the fact that the absence of the petitioner was not
wilful or deliberate and her readiness and willingness to surrender and join
the proceedings, in case one opportunity is granted to the petitioner, no
prejudice shall be caused to any of the parties, rather her joining the
proceedings would help in expediting the trial. This Court in light of the
judgments referred to above being applicable to the instant case, finds that
the ends of justice would be adequately met if the present petition is
allowed.
11. In view of the afore-mentioned judgments and the facts and
circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 14.08.2023 and
24.03.2023, Annexures P10 & P7, are set aside.
12. She is directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before
06.04.2026 and on so doing, shall release her on bail subject to its
satisfaction and deposit costs of Rs.10,000/- with Shree Mata Mansa Devi
Bhandar Committee Charitable Trust (Regd.) having its Account
No.50100238189041, IFSC Code-HDFC0000108, HDFC Bank, Sector-8,
Panchkula. On furnishing bail/surety bonds, she is also directed to furnish
undertaking by way of an affidavit that she will appear on each and every
date of hearing before the trial Court, unless specifically exempted by the
Court. She shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.
The trial Court may impose any other condition that it may deem
appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Till then, no
coercive steps be taken against the petitioner.
13. The petition is disposed of.
CRM-M-14671-2026
14. Before parting with this order, it is made abundantly clear that
in case the petitioner does not adhere to the aforesaid, the present petition
shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court.
19.03.2026 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
ashok JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
