Gagandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

-
8676-2026
-1-
CRM-M-48

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF PUN
NJAB & HARYANA AT
ARH
CHANDIGA



(159)
CRM
Date
M-M-48676-2026(O&M)
of Decision: 31.08.2026
Gagandeep
Singh
......PETITIONER
Versus
State of Pun
njab and another
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: H

Present:





HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEE
ERJA K. KALSON
Mr. Aman Pal, Sr. Advocate w
Mr. Rishabh Chaudhary, Advo
for the petitioner.
with
ocate
Mr. Yatin Bunger, AAG, Punja
ab

NEERJA K
K. KALSON, J. (ORAL)
1.
The present petition has been
n filed under Section 528 of th
he
Bharatiya N
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
3, seeking quashing of the orde
er
dated 13.09
9.2021 (Annexure P-6 passed by
y the learned Judicial Magistrat
te
First Class,
, Ludhiana, whereby the petitio
oner was declared a proclaime
ed
offender in
FIR No.127 dated 07.05.2020, r
registered under Sections 307 an
nd
506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (corre
esponding Sections 109 and 35
51
BNS, 2023)
) and Sections 25 and 27 of the A
Arms Act, at Police Station Salem
m
Tabri, Polic
ce Commissionerate, Ludhiana.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitio
oner submits that after registratio
on
of the afor
esaid FIR, the petitioner had a
approached the competent Cour
rt
seeking gra
ant of anticipatory bail, which w
was dismissed by this Court. It i
is
submitted t
that thereafter the petitioner ap
pproached this Court by way o
of
CRM-M-20
0108-2022, wherein vide order d
dated 21.07.2022, protection from
m
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.09.07 18:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-2-
CRM-M-48676-2026

coercive action was granted to him. The said petition was subsequently
dismissed as withdrawn on 13.05.2026 on account of a bona fide
miscommunication between the petitioner and his counsel.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a
permanent resident of Village Sohangarh, Rattewal, Guruhar Sahai, District
Ferozepur, Punjab, whereas the proclamation proceedings were purportedly
executed at Village Kadiya, District Ludhiana, where the petitioner has
never resided. It is submitted that the petitioner has placed his Aadhaar Card
on record reflecting his permanent address and, consequently proclamation
effected at the incorrect address could not validly serve as constructive or
actual notice of the proceedings upon the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel submits that during the course of investigation,
the Investigating Agency recorded that the petitioner had acted in self-
defence and that co-accused Nekveer Singh was found innocent. It is
submitted that the investigative material indicates that the complainant party
was the aggressive party and that the petitioner had acted solely in defence
of his person and family. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner
has joined the investigation and has not misused the protection granted to
him. It is further submitted that the Investigating Agency, during the
pendency of investigation, moved an application before the learned
Magistrate seeking issuance of warrants against the petitioner and that the
same was allowed without there being sufficient material to establish that the
petitioner was deliberately evading the process of law. Learned counsel
submits that thereafter proclamation proceedings were initiated and the
petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender, without recording the
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.09.07 18:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-3-
CRM-M-48676-2026

requisite satisfaction in terms of the statutory provisions under Section 84 of
BNSS, 2023.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has neither
absconded nor concealed himself with an intention to evade the proceedings.
It is contended that the petitioner has been diligently availing his legal
remedies before the Courts and, in fact, had approached this Court on earlier
occasions. It is also submitted that one of the injured witnesses, namely
Kirandeep Kaur, subsequently furnished an affidavit dated 19.05.2026
stating that the petitioner was not responsible for the firearm injury
attributed to him.
6. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner had separately
challenged the order whereby cognizance was taken in the matter and that
proceedings before the learned Trial Court had remained stayed pursuant to
orders passed by this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has
been consistently pursued his legal remedies available to him and that there
is no material to demonstrate that he deliberately absconded so as to defeat
the process of law.
7. Learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that the
petitioner failed to appear before the learned Trial Court and, consequently,
warrants were issued against him followed by proclamation proceedings. It
is submitted that the petitioner was duly proceeded against in accordance
with law and, therefore, no interference is warranted.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.09.07 18:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-4-
CRM-M-48676-2026

9. On an overall consideration of the material placed on record
this Court is of the considered opinion that the proclamation proceedings
initiated against the petitioner do not appear to be in conformity with the
mandatory statutory requirements governing such proceedings. Since the
impugned order was passed on 13.09.2021, the legality of the proclamation
proceedings has to be examined in the light of the statutory provision then
governing the field, namely Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, corresponding to Section 84 of the BNSS, 2023.
10. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, while examining the
applicability of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an
accused, in Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319 , 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,
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.09.07 18:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-5-
CRM-M-48676-2026

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)
(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
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.09.07 18:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-6-
CRM-M-48676-2026

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 Cr.LJ 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
Vs. State of U.P. and another: 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh v.
the State: 1955 CriLJ 318 ).
11. Before issuing a proclamation, the Court must be satisfied that
the person against whom a warrant has been issued has absconded or is
concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed. Such
satisfaction constitutes a condition precedent and cannot be founded merely
upon non-appearance. Furthermore, the procedure prescribed for publication
of the proclamation is also required to be substantially and meaningfully
complied with, having regard to the serious consequences which follow such
proceedings. Non-compliance with the essential statutory requirements
cannot be treated as a mere procedural irregularity.
12. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically disputed the
address at which the proclamation was effected and has placed material on
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.09.07 18:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-7-
CRM-M-48676-2026

record showing his permanent address at Village Sohangarh, Rattewal,
Guruhar Sahai, District Ferozepur, whereas the proclamation was allegedly
carried out at Village Kadiya, District Ludhiana. The said discrepancy
assumes significance because the primary object of proclamation
proceedings is to secure the appearance of a person alleged to be deliberately
evading the process of law. Where the proclamation is stated to have been
effected at an address which is specifically disputed by the person
concerned, the Court is required to examine whether the statutory process
was in fact effected in a manner reasonably capable of bringing the
proclamation to his notice.
13. It is also significant that from the very beginning, the petitioner
has been taking recourse to the remedies available to him in law and had
approached the Courts at different stages of the proceedings. He had initially
sought anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by this Court, and thereafter
approached this Court by way of CRM-M-20108-2022, wherein protection
from coercive action was granted vide order dated 21.07.2022. The said
petition was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn on 13.05.2026.
14. The circumstance that the petitioner has been pursuing remedies
before the Courts is not, by itself, conclusive of the legality of the
proclamation proceedings. However, it is a relevant factor while examining
whether there was a deliberate and conscious attempt on his part to abscond
or conceal himself so as to defeat execution of the process. The said conduct,
when considered together with the dispute regarding the address at which the
proclamation was effected, does not prima facie support an inference of
deliberate evasion of the process of law.
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.09.07 18:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-8-
CRM-M-48676-2026

15. In these circumstances, the mere dismissal of the earlier
anticipatory bail petition cannot, by itself, establish that the petitioner had
deliberately absconded or concealed himself so as to evade the process of
law, nor can such dismissal dispense with mandatory compliance with
statutory procedure governing proclamation proceedings.
16. The essential requirement remains that there must be sufficient
material before the Court to form a reasoned satisfaction that the person
concerned had absconded or was concealing himself, so that the warrant
could not be executed. Such satisfaction must necessarily precede the
issuance of proclamation and cannot be presumed merely because the person
did not appear before the Court.
17. Considering the aforesaid circumstances cumulatively,
particularly the petitioner's continuous recourse to legal remedies, the
dispute regarding the address at which the proclamation was executed, and
the absence of satisfactory material demonstrating any deliberate attempt on
his part to evade the process of law, the requisite statutory satisfaction for
sustaining the impugned declaration is not borne out from the record.
18. Taking into account the totality of the
circumstances,particularly the dispute regarding the very address at which
the proclamation was effected, the petitioner's conduct in pursuing remedies
before the Courts, the protection from coercive action granted to him and the
absence of satisfactory material indicating that he deliberately absconded or
concealed himself with a view to frustrate execution of the process of law,
this Court is of the considered view that the order declaring the petitioner as
a proclaimed offender cannot be sustained.
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.09.07 18:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-9-
CRM-M-48676-2026

19. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 13.09.2021 (Annexure P-6), passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed
offender, is hereby set aside. Consequently, all proceedings arising solely
out of the said declaration shall stand quashed.
20. It is, however, clarified that the setting aside of the impugned
order shall not absolve the petitioner of his obligation to submit to the
jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court and shall have no bearing upon the
substantive proceedings arising out of the FIR, which shall proceed in
accordance with law.
21. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial
Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order and furnish appropriate bonds to the satisfaction of the
learned Trial Court.
22. Needless to say, in case the petitioner moves an application for
grant of bail before the learned Trial Court, the same shall be considered and
decided expeditiously on its merits in accordance with law, without being
influenced by the fact that the petitioner had earlier been declared a
proclaimed offender, the said declaration having been set aside by this
Court.
23. It is, however, made clear that nothing observed hereinabove
shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the FIR or the
defence of the petitioner. The observations made herein are confined
exclusively to the adjudication of the legality of the impugned proclamation
proceedings and shall not prejudice either party at any subsequent stage of
the proceedings.
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.09.07 18:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-10-
CRM-M-48676-2026

24. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of

(NEERJA K. KALSON)
JUDGE
31.08.2026
Atul
1. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

2. Whether reportable Yes/No
ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI
2026.09.07 18:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document