Maninder Singh @ Love vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-62364-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH


159
CRM-M-62364-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 02.11.2026

MANINDER SINGH @ LOVE ...Petitioner

Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent

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

Present:- Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab

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 setting aside of the impugned order
dated 17.11.2023 (Annexure P-4), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Amritsar, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed
person in case FIR No.191 dated 13.09.2020 (Annexure P-1), registered under
Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, at Police Station Mohkampura,
Amritsar.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, along with co-accused Ashok
Kumar, was arrayed as an accused in the aforesaid FIR. The petitioner was
granted bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 03.09.2021 (Annexure
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.03 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62364-2026 (O&M) -2-
P-2). The zimni orders placed on record reflect that the petitioner, thereafter,
failed to appear before the learned Trial Court. To secure his presence, notice
and subsequently non-bailable warrants were issued against him, which
remained unexecuted. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.08.2023,
directed issuance of proclamation for 17.10.2023. The proclamation was
stated to have been effected on 12.10.2023 and the statement of the serving
official was recorded. On 17.10.2023, the learned Trial Court noticed that the
statutory period of thirty days had not elapsed and adjourned the matter to
17.11.2023, whereafter, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person vide
the impugned order dated 17.11.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned
order is contrary to the mandatory requirements of Section 84 of BNSS
(corresponding to Section 82 Cr.P.C). It is submitted that the proclamation
was effected on 12.10.2023, whereas the date fixed for appearance was
17.10.2023, thereby affording the petitioner only five days to appear. It is
further contended that, once the learned Trial Court itself noticed on
17.10.2023 that the statutory period of thirty days had not elapsed, the defect
could not have been cured merely by adjourning the proceedings to
17.11.2023. In the absence of issuance and publication of a fresh proclamation
specifying a date of appearance after the prescribed period, the subsequent
declaration of the petitioner as a proclaimed person is legally unsustainable.
4. Per contra , learned State counsel opposes the petition,
submitting that the petitioner was granted the concession of bail but has
repeatedly remained absent from the proceedings despite having knowledge
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.03 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62364-2026 (O&M) -3-
of the pendency of the criminal case. It is further submitted that the learned
trial Court had resorted to successive coercive processes to secure his
presence, yet the petitioner failed to appear. The impugned order was issued
after the statutory period of thirty days had expired from the date of
publication of the proclamation. It is, therefore, prayed that no interference is
called for and the petition be dismissed.
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 impugned order dated 17.11.2023,
declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, can be sustained when the
proclamation was effected on 12.10.2023 and required the petitioner to appear
on 17.10.2023, thereby affording less than the statutorily prescribed period of
thirty days, and the learned Trial Court thereafter adjourned the proceedings
without issuing a fresh proclamation.
7. Before examining the factual matrix, it would be apposite to
advert to the statutory framework governing proclamation proceedings.
Section 82 Cr.P.C. provides that where a Court has reason to believe that a
person, against whom a warrant has been issued, has absconded or is
concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, it may publish a
written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and time not
less than thirty days from the date of publication. The provision, therefore,
contemplates not only the requisite judicial satisfaction regarding
abscondence or concealment but also strict adherence to the prescribed period
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.03 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62364-2026 (O&M) -4-
and manner of publication. Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. reads 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
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.
[(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in
respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections
302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399,
400, 402, 436, 449, 459, or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), and such person fails to appear at the specified place and
time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such
inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.03 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62364-2026 (O&M) -5-
make a declaration to that effect.
(5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a
declaration made by the Court under sub-section (4) as they apply to
the proclamation published under sub-section (1).]”
8. 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).
(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)
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.03 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62364-2026 (O&M) -6-
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 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).
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.03 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62364-2026 (O&M) -7-
(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).”
9. Further, reference may be made to Davinder Singh Chawla and
another v. State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-15728-2021, decided on
09.04.2021, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dealt with a
substantially similar controversy. In the said case, the proclamation was
published less than thirty days before the stipulated date of appearance.
Although the learned Magistrate thereafter adjourned the matter and
subsequently declared the accused proclaimed persons, this Court held that
the deficiency in the statutory period could not be cured merely by adjourning
the proceedings and that issuance and publication of a fresh proclamation
were mandatory.
10. Reference may also be made to Harwinder Singh v. State of
Punjab, CRM-M-58579-2025, decided on 23.02.2026, wherein a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court examined the legality of a proclamation which had been
published less than thirty days before the stipulated date of appearance. It was
held that merely adjourning the proceedings to await the appearance of the
accused, without issuing a fresh proclamation, could not cure the defect
arising from non-compliance with the mandatory statutory period, and the
order declaring the accused a proclaimed person was consequently set aside.
11. The legal position emerging from the aforesaid judicial
pronouncements is that compliance with the statutory requirements of Section
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.03 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62364-2026 (O&M) -8-
82 Cr.P.C. is mandatory. In particular, where the date specified for appearance
in the published proclamation falls short of the prescribed minimum period of
thirty days, the defect cannot be cured merely by adjourning the proceedings
to a subsequent date. In such circumstances, issuance and publication of a
fresh proclamation in accordance with law is required.
12. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the record reveals that
vide order dated 24.08.2023, the learned Trial Court directed issuance of
proclamation and fixed the matter for 17.10.2023. The proclamation was
effected on 12.10.2023. Thus, the petitioner was required to appear within five
days of publication of the proclamation. Significantly, on 17.10.2023, the
learned Trial Court itself recorded that the waiting period of thirty days had
not elapsed and adjourned the matter to 17.11.2023 for awaiting the presence
of the petitioner. However, no fresh proclamation was issued specifying a date
of appearance after the expiry of the mandatory period. The fact that thirty
days had elapsed by the subsequent date, i.e. 17.11.2023, would not, by itself,
validate the proceedings.
13. The statutory requirement is not satisfied by the mere passage of
thirty days before declaring an accused a proclaimed person; rather, the
proclamation itself must specify a date of appearance affording the prescribed
period from its publication. A subsequent adjournment cannot retrospectively
cure the defect in the proclamation. This infirmity is squarely covered by the
principles enunciated in the above-referred judicial pronouncements.
Consequently, although the learned Trial Court had initiated the process
contemplated under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the subsequent declaration dated
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.03 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62364-2026 (O&M) -9-
17.11.2023, founded upon a proclamation which did not satisfy the mandatory
statutory period, cannot be sustained.
14. Nevertheless, the procedural infirmity noticed herein does not
efface the petitioner’s obligation to participate in the criminal proceedings.
The record reflects that he had been granted bail on 03.09.2021 and thereafter
failed to appear before the learned Trial Court, resulting in issuance of non-
bailable warrants and initiation of proclamation 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/-.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is
allowed and the impugned order dated 17.11.2023 (Annexure P-4), passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar, declaring the petitioner
a proclaimed person, 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. 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.
16. It is clarified that the present order is confined exclusively to the
legality of the impugned declaration dated 17.11.2023 (Annexure P-4),
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.03 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62364-2026 (O&M) -10-
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the criminal case or the
validity of any other order. The learned Trial Court shall remain at liberty to
proceed in accordance with law, including taking recourse to fresh
proclamation proceedings, if so warranted.
17. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

02.11.2026 (NEERJA K. KALSON)
Atul JUDGE



Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether reportable Yes/No
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.11.03 17:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document