Balwinder Singh Alias Binder vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-47280-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

131
CRM-M-47280-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.11.2026

Balwinder Singh alias Binder ...Petitioner

Versus


State of Punjab ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON

Present:- Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate and
Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab

(Oral)
NEERJA K. KALSON, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking quashing of the impugned order dated
13.10.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Judge, Special Court,
Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in case
FIR No.149 dated 03.08.2023 (Annexure P-1), registered under Section 22 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station
Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the
aforesaid FIR and was released on bail. The record indicates that petitioner
appeared before the learned Trial Court up to 21.01.2025, whereafter, he
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.05 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47280-2026 (O&M) -2-
remained absent and his bail order, bail/surety bonds were cancelled and
forfeited to State and warrants of arrest were issued. Vide order dated
30.08.2025 (Annexure P-6), the learned Trial Court recorded that it is of the
view the petitioner is intentionally not appearing and cannot be served
through ordinary process and directed issuance of proclamation under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 84 of BNSS) and prescribed
the modes of its publication. Vide the impugned order dated 13.10.2025, the
petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender, inter alia recording that the
proclamation had been received back duly effected and that the statement of
the serving official had been recorded.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the mandatory
procedure prescribed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not complied with before
passing the impugned order. It is submitted that the statement of the serving
official dated 09.08.2025 (Annexure P-7) does not state that the
proclamation was publicly read at any conspicuous place in the town or
village where the petitioner ordinarily resides. The statement merely refers
to copies having been affixed outside the house, at a common place in the
village and outside the Court. It is further pointed out that the said statement
bears a date preceding the order dated 30.08.2025 directing issuance of
proclamation. The impugned declaration is, therefore, stated to be
unsustainable for non-compliance with the mandatory statutory
requirements.
4. Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the petition,
submitting that the petitioner failed to appear before the learned Trial Court
despite having been granted bail and that coercive processes had been issued
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.05 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47280-2026 (O&M) -3-
to secure his presence. It is submitted that the proclamation was received
back as duly effected, the statement of the serving official was recorded, and
the petitioner did not appear despite expiry of the prescribed period.
Dismissal of the petition is accordingly sought.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully
perused the material available on record.
6. The controversy involved in the present petition lies within a
narrow compass, namely, whether the declaration of the petitioner as a
proclaimed offender can be sustained when the material relied upon by the
learned Trial Court does not record compliance with each of the prescribed
modes of publication of proclamation under Section 82(2) Cr.P.C. For
reference relevant extract of the provision of Section 82 Cr.P.C. is reproduced
as under:
“ 82. Proclamation for person absconding. - (1) If any Court has
reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any
person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded
or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed,
such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to
appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than
thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.
(2) The proclamation shall be published as 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 shall 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 house;
(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the
proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.05 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47280-2026 (O&M) -4-
circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.
(3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to
the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified
day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be
conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Section have been
complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such
day.
7. In this regard, reference may be made to Sonu v. State of
Haryana, 2021 (1) RCR (Criminal) 319, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court, while examining the mandatory requirements of Section 82
Cr.P.C., held as under:
“9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for
issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and
declaring him as proclaimed person/offender may be summarized as
under:-
(i) 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 concerned. (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 82(1) of the Cr.P.C.,
1973. (See Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561).
(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 concealing himself so
that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed,
despite reasonable diligence. (See BishundayalMahton and others v.
Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. State of
U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783).

ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.05 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47280-2026 (O&M) -5-
(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 and publication of the proclamation . (See
Gurappa Gugal and others v. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and
Shokat Ali v. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (CRIMINAL) 339)
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/offender and the
proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See
Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) RCR
(CRIMINAL) 166 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and
another : 2013 (4) RCR (CRIMINAL) 550)

(vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down
in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. 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 sub-clauses (a)- (c) in section 82 (2)(i) of the
Cr.P.C., 1973 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 W.B. : 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
Courthouse and report regarding publication may be made on the
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.05 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47280-2026 (O&M) -6-
fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required
where the proclamation is also required to be published in the
newspaper.
(vii) 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 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C.,
1973. Such statement in writing by the Court is declared to be
conclusive evidence that the requirements of Section 82 have been
complied with and that the proclamation was published on such day .
(See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965).
(xi) The conditions specified in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 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 U.P. and another: 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh v.
The State: 1955 CriLJ 318).”
8. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the statement of the
serving official dated 09.08.2025 (Annexure P-7), as translated and placed
on record, states that one copy of the proclamation was affixed outside the
petitioner's house, another at a common place in the village and a third
outside the Court. The statement does not state that the proclamation was
publicly read at a conspicuous place of the town or village in which the
petitioner ordinarily resides. Thus, one of the express and mandatory modes
of publication is not shown to have been complied with. A general recital in
the subsequent order that the proclamation had been duly effected cannot
substitute for the material required to establish compliance with the statutory
procedure.
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.05 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47280-2026 (O&M) -7-

9. There is also an apparent chronological discrepancy in the
record: the statement relied upon by the Trial Court is dated 09.08.2025,
whereas the order directing issuance of proclamation is dated 30.08.2025.
This discrepancy further reinforces the need for strict scrutiny of the material
relied upon for declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender. In any event,
on the material presently available, the mandatory mode of publicly reading
the proclamation has not been demonstrated.
10. The requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are not empty
formalities. The prescribed modes of publication are intended to provide an
effective and legally recognised opportunity to the person concerned to
appear before the Court. Unless compliance with the mandatory procedure is
established, the consequential declaration cannot be sustained merely on the
basis that the petitioner had previously remained absent or that other
coercive processes had been issued. The impugned order, therefore, suffers
from a material procedural infirmity.
11. Nevertheless, the procedural infirmity noticed herein does not
efface the petitioner’s obligation to participate in the criminal proceedings.
The petitioner has tendered an unconditional apology for his absence and
expressed his readiness to appear before the learned Trial Court on each and
every date of hearing. Having regard to his previous conduct and the
consequent expenditure of judicial time, this Court considers it appropriate
to impose costs of ₹25,000/-.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by
the learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, declaring the petitioner a
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.05 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-47280-2026 (O&M) -8-
proclaimed offender in FIR No.149 dated 03.08.2023, registered under
Section 22 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District
Ludhiana, is hereby set aside. The petitioner is, however, burdened with
costs of ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), to be deposited
with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Legal Services Committee
within six weeks from today.
13. It is, however, clarified that the present order is confined to the
legality of the impugned declaration and shall not be construed as absolving
the petitioner of his obligation to appear before the learned Trial Court and
participate in the proceedings. The learned Trial Court shall remain at liberty
to proceed in accordance with law, including initiating fresh proclamation
proceedings, if so warranted, after ensuring compliance with the statutory
requirements. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court on
the date fixed and shall continue to appear on each and every date of
hearing, unless his personal appearance is specifically exempted in
accordance with law.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

03.11.2026 (NEERJA K. KALSON)
Atul JUDGE




Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.05 12:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document