Rajan vs State Of Punjab

151

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-62114-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 02.11.2026

Rajan ……Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..….Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. Dinesh Mahajan, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (Oral).
The present petition, instituted under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assails the order
dated 11.09.2026 (Annexure P.3) passed by the Court of
Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the petitioner
was declared a proclaimed person.
2. The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are
that the petitioner is facing trial in FIR No. 30 dated 16.02.2023,
registered at Police Station City Gurdaspur, District Gurdaspur,
under Sections 399 and 402 IPC (Section 310(4),(5) of the BNS).
The petitioner was granted regular bail by the Sessions Court,
Gurdaspur, vide order dated 20.03.2023 and thereafter, he had
been regularly appearing in the proceedings. However, he
absented from the proceedings on 07.07.2026 and
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.05 15.53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62114-2026 [2]

21.07.2026, as a result of which, his bail was cancelled and
non-bailable warrants were issued to procure his presence and
on 21.07.2026, the trial Court recorded that non-bailable
warrants issued to procure the presence of the petitioner, had
been served through his wife, but he had not appeared as a
result of which, the proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C., were
initiated and vide order dated 11.09.2026, the petitioner was
declared a proclaimed person.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
order vide which the petitioner was declared a proclaimed
person is not sustainable, for, there was no proper execution of
the non-bailable warrants. While referring to the interlocutory
orders passed by the trial Court, it is submitted that non-
bailable warrants were reported to have been served through the
wife of the petitioner, which is not a proper procedure to execute
the non-bailable warrants and even the order issuing
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., was not passed in
accordance with law.
3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is willing to surrender before the trial Court, but
apprehends that since he has been declared a proclaimed
person, the moment he surrenders, he would be taken into
custody.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on
behalf of the respondent-State.
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.05 15.53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62114-2026 [3]

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel the petitioner.
7. A perusal of the interlocutory orders passed by the
trial Court shows that on account of non-appearance of the
petitioner, notice was issued to him vide order dated
20.05.2026. He caused appearance on 03.06.2006, but again
absented on 07.07.2026, as a result of which his bail was
cancelled, bail/surety bonds were forfeited to the State and non-
bailable warrants were issued to procure his presence. The order
dated 07.07.2026, reads as under:-
“Accused Rahul Kumar is produced through
VC by Goindwal Jail Authority. Accused Salatian
Mash @ Buta Mash has surrendered today. Perusal
of file reveals that accused Salatian Masih @ Buta
Mash got absent from the proceedings of the trial
and his bail order was cancelled along with his
bail/surety bonds and his non bailable warrants
were issued. Therefore he is hereby taken into
custody as no application for bail on his behalf has
been filed today. He be sent to judicial custody.
Accused Rajan and Mosam Kumar have not
come present today. They are absent without
intimation. Therefore, this court is satisfied that
accused Rajan and Mosam Kumar are intentionally
not appearing in this case. Therefore, their bail
orders are hereby cancelled. The bail bonds/surety
bonds furnished on their behalf are hereby also
cancelled and forfeited to State. Now non bailable
warrants of accused Rajan and Mosam Kumar be
issued for 21.07.2026. Notice to their sureties be
also issued for date fixed. Production warrants of
accused Rahul Kumar be also issued for date
fixed.”
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.05 15.53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62114-2026 [4]

8. On 21.07.2026, since the petitioner did not cause
appearance, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued.
The said order reads as under:-
“Accused Rahul Kumar is neither produced in
person nor through VC by Goindwal Jail Authority.
Non bailable warrants of accused Mosam
Kumar received back with the report that he is
lodged in Central Jail, Gurdaspur in another case.
Non bailable warrants of accused Rajan
received back served through his wife but he has
not come present. In view of the report on the non
bailable warrants, this Court is satisfied that
accused Rajan is intentionally not appearing in this
case and is absconding from the process of Court
and his presence cannot be secured through
ordinary process. In these circumstances, let
proclamation be issued against accused Rajan
under Section 82 Cr.P.C/84 BNSS returnable for
11.09.2026. Clear directions be given to the serving
official that time period between the execution of
proclamation and next date of hearing should not
be less than 30 days.
Production warrants of Rahul Kumar and
Mosam Kumar be also issued for date fixed.”

9. Ultimately, vide order dated 11.09.2026, the
petitioner was declared a proclaimed person. The said order
reads as under:-
“An application has been moved for
exemption of accused Rahul Kumar from personal
appearance for today only which is considered and
allowed as per the reasons mentioned in the
application.
Accused Mosam Kumar produced in
pursuant of production warrants by Gurdaspur Jail
Authority. Perusal of file reveals that accused
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.05 15.53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62114-2026 [5]

Mosam Kumar got absent from the proceedings of
the trial and his bail order was cancelled along with
his bail/surety bonds and his non bailable
warrants were issued. Therefore he is hereby taken
into custody as no application for bail on his behalf
has been filed today. He be sent to judicial custody.
Proclamation issued against accused Rajan
son of Parkash Chand received back duly executed.
Statement of serving official is also recorded. As per
his statement, the proclamation was effected on
05.08.2026 and accused was required to appear in
the court today consequent upon said
proclamation. 30 days between the proclamation
and the date fixed in the court have been elapsed.
However accused Rajan son of Parkash Chand has
not turned up. Therefore this court is satisfied the
accused is absconding and thus accused Rajan son
of Parkash Chand is hereby declared as Proclaimed
Offender in this case. Necessary intimation in this
regard be sent to the concerned SHO.
Now to come on 29.09.2026 for consideration
on framing of charges. Accused in custody be also
produced in the court in person on said date.”

10. Before proceeding to examine the legality of the
impugned order, it would be apposite to refer to the statutory
provisions and the law on the subject.
11. Section 82 Cr.P.C lays down 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:-
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.05 15.53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62114-2026 [6]

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 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).”
12. In the case of Sonu Vs. State of Haryana, 2021(1)
RCR (Criminal) 319, a coordinate Bench, while examining
Section 82 Cr.P.C, summarised the essential requirements for
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.05 15.53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62114-2026 [7]

issuance and publication of proclamation against an
absconder and declaring him a proclaimed person/offender;
“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
Bishundayal Mahton 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).
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.05 15.53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62114-2026 [8]

(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.
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.05 15.53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62114-2026 [9]

(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
noncompliance 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.”
13. Clearly, while summarising the requirements, the
Coordinate Bench referred to almost the entire law on the
subject. Still further, there can be no gainsaying the fact that
the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are required to be complied
with scrupulously.
14. It, therefore, emerges that prior to the issuance of a
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C, the Court concerned
would be required to record its satisfaction that the accused,
against whom such a proclamation was sought to be issued was
absconding or was concealing himself/herself with an intention
to evade arrest. This satisfaction is required to be recorded by a
Court initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C on account
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.05 15.53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62114-2026 [10]

of the grave civil and criminal ramifications that the provision
has qua the rights of an accused.
15. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the trial
Court committed an error in initiating the proceedings under
Section 82 Cr.P.C. despite the fact that there was no proper
execution of the non-bailable warrants. As per the order of the
trial court, the non-bailable warrants were alleged to have been
served through the wife of the petitioner, which is not the proper
way to execute the said warrants. It has to be remembered that
it was not summons and were in fact non-bailable warrants.
Still further, there cannot be proper service through an adult
female member of a family. No doubt, it was the petitioner, who
had absented from the proceedings, but still, the Court was
required to follow the proper procedure. Still further, it has to be
borne in mind that the purpose of issuance of the non-bailable
warrants and initiation of further proceedings is to procure the
presence of the accused which the petitioner is willing now to
put in.
16. In view of the above, the impugned order dated
11.09.2026 (Annexure P.3) is found to be unsustainable and is
set aside.
17. If the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court
within a period of 30 days from today and moves an application
for bail, the same be decided expeditiously, in accordance with
law. However, in case, the petitioner does not appear, which may
be an eventuality as he may be interested in only getting the
order declaring him a proclaimed person set aside, the present
DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.05 15.53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-62114-2026 [11]

petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The Court is
impelled to pass this order because now the petitioner has
knowledge of the proceedings and has given an undertaking to
surrender before the trial Court. No one should be permitted to
misuse the process of law by assailing an order on technical
grounds and then taking undue advantage of the said order
having been set aside, which will tantamount to frustrating the
proceedings before the trial Court. A Court is expected to
balance the equities and in order to achieve that, this Court
deems it appropriate to pass the instant order.
18. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above
terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
02.11.2026 JUDGE
ds
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No


DALBIR SINGH
2026.11.05 15.53
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document