IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 155 Rajpreet Singh @ v. CRM-M-68279-2025 Decided on : 23.12.2025
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 155 Rajpreet Singh @ Raja State of Punjab Versus CRM-M-68279-2025 Decided on : 23.12.2025 . . . Petitioner(s) . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Legal Reasoning
Considering all such aspects, this Court in the case of Ashish Kumar Honda @ Ashish Handa Vs. State of Punjab, 2022 (4) RCR (criminal) 765; Law Finder Doc Id # 20238111 considered similar plea of appearance, expressed at the instance of the accused, who failed to appear before the Court at appropriate time, and observed that: “paramount consideration of the Court is to secure presence of accused on each and every date for speeding up the trial for its final conclusion. Already Courts are flooded with so much litigation, resulting in slow pace of work, because of more than one reason. The required energy and manpower be used for expediting the proceedings of the Court, instead of running after the accused persons to get hold of them.” JAWALA RAM 2025.12.24 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-68279-2025 - 4 - Again, this Court has considered the aforementioned similar plea in case Veena @ Veena Devi v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-2206-2025, decided on 16.01.2025. 7. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and examined the relevant material available on record. The petitioner has remiss in appearing before the Court due the reasons mentioned here-above, and consequently, impugned order (P-5) declaring the petitioner as ‘proclaimed offender’ has been passed against him. It also cannot be left unnoticed that as and when the petitioner came to know about passing of the impugned order, the petitioner has moved the present petition, showing his inclination to submit himself before the trial Court. 8. In totality of circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given one chance to appear before the trial Court, so that proceedings may restart and continue in smooth manner. Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned order dated 17.05.2025 (P-5) is set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner as ‘proclaimed offender’, and he is directed to be released on bail, in the eventuality of surrender by him before the trial Court on or before 09.01.2026. The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner would also submit specific undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial in future and the proceedings would not be delayed because of his conduct. However, this order shall be subject to the payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs, to be deposited by the petitioner in an Old Age Home of the area, as may be decided by the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court shall JAWALA RAM 2025.12.24 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-68279-2025 - 5 - also specify the time frame within which such costs will be required to be deposited, but not more than two weeks, failing which this order would not be of any advantage to the petitioner. 9.
Arguments
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral) 1. Instant petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.), has been filed for quashing of the order dated 17.05.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereby the petitioner has been declared as ‘proclaimed offender’, on account of his non-appearance in the following FIR:- FIR No. Date Section(s) 164 01.11.2021 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 Police Station District Sadar Jagraon Ludhiana 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after registration of aforesaid FIR, petitioner was released on bail and thereafter, the challan was presented before the Court on 26.04.2023 (P-3). However, at that time, petitioner was already in Canada. Therefore, he never received any intimation in regard to the final outcome of the registration of FIR in question and since then, petitioner could not put in appearance in the JAWALA RAM 2025.12.24 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-68279-2025 - 2 - proceedings to join before the Court below. Consequently, vide impugned order dated 17.05.2025 (P-5), petitioner was declared as ‘proclaimed offender’, without following the due process of law, as provided u/s 82 of Cr.P.C. In support of his submissions, learned counsel refers to zimni orders of learned trial Court, which are annexed as Annexures P-6 & P-7, respectively. 3. Learned counsel contends that undoubtedly the petitioner committed a lapse by not appearing before the Court below, however, the mandatory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. were not complied with in their true letter and spirit. Learned counsel submits that immediately upon acquiring knowledge of such proclamation order, petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. Thus, without delving much into the merits, it is submitted that if one opportunity is granted by protecting the petitioner from arrest and allowing him to be released on bail upon his surrender, he undertakes not to absent himself in future without prior permission of the Court and shall fully cooperate for early disposal of the trial. 4. 5. Notice of motion. Learned State counsel puts an appearance, and opposes the request of the petitioner by submitting that petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, because, he knowingly evade the proceedings before the trial Court. Learned State counsel further submits that looking at his behaviour, there is no surety that in future, petitioner would not be absent for the purpose of delaying the trial. 6. In number of cases, wherein, accused stopped appearing in JAWALA RAM 2025.12.24 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-68279-2025 - 3 - criminal cases, the Courts are compelled to declare accused as ‘Proclaimed Person/Proclaimed Offender’. After examining the facts, this Court has formulated a uniform method to ensure the presence of accused before the concerned Court, to enable it to proceed further instead of delaying the proceedings by awaiting the presence of accused. Intentional or unintentional default of the accused can be dealt with by examining the facts from case to case involved, and where it is realised that absence or prolonged absence of such accused is intentional to evade the process of law, he/she can be penalized examining the nature of crime in which he is facing the proceedings and thereupon by imposing some cost amount subject to his/her capacity to pay. Primary object of every Court is only to examine the commission of crime in question before it viz-a-viz the person/accused, who is subjected to such proceedings, and if possible justice be imparted at the earliest without unnecessary delay. It is not expected that undue time would be devoted in securing the presence of absconded accused and also to waste energy by enforcing the special mechanism to arrest such accused.
Decision
With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE December 23, 2025 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2025.12.24 19:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document