Bau Pehalwan v. State of Punjab CRM
Case Details
CRM-M-70578 70578-2025(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 144 @ Bau Pehalwan Kuldeep Singh @ Bau Pehalwan Versus State of Punjab CRM-M-70578-2025 (O&M) 2025 (O&M) .2025 Date of decision: 15.12.2025 ....Petitioner ....Petitioner ...Respondent ...Respondent
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. , Mr. Umaid Singh Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. for the petitioner ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) ***** 1. for quashing the order dated Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the order dated Prayer made in the present petition Prayer made in the present petition FIR , vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in FIR , vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed 18.09.2025, vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed No.23 dated 23.05.2024, registered under Sections 21, 23, 29 & 61/85 of NDPS No.23 dated 23.05.2024, registered under Sections 21, 23, 29 & 61/85 of NDPS No.23 dated 23.05.2024, registered under Sections 21, 23, 29 & 61/85 of NDPS No.23 dated 23.05.2024, registered under Sections 21, 23, 29 & 61/85 of NDPS Act, at Police Station Amir Khas, District Fazilka. Act, at Police Station Amir Khas, District Fazilka. Act, at Police Station Amir Khas, District Fazilka. 2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was Learned counsel submits that the implicated in petitioner was falsely implicated in the above-noted FIR , wherein he along with Panchayat members, appeared before noted FIR, wherein he along with Panchayat members, appeared before , wherein he along with Panchayat members, appeared before qua his name. the SSP, who assured him that he was nominated due to confusion qua his name the SSP, who assured him that he was nominated due to confusion the SSP, who assured him that he was nominated due to confusion Thus, he did not appear before the trial Court, whereupon, notices/ Thus, he did not appear before warrants were the trial Court, whereupon, notices/warrants were issued against him and against him and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued and Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued and , wherein it was stated e serving official was recorded on 30.08.2025, wherein it was stated e serving official was recorded on statement of the serving official was recorded on that period of 30 days has not elapsed. Thus, that period of 30 days has not elapsed. he procedure mandated under Thus, the procedure mandated under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had not been followed, as he Section 82 Cr.P.C. had not been followed, as person he was declared proclaimed person requisite time period of 30 days to appear before the without affording him the pre-requisite time period of 30 days to appear before the requisite time period of 30 days to appear before the without affording him the pre PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.12.15 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70578-2025(O&M) 2 trial Court. He is ready and willing to join the proceedings and prays that one last opportunity may be granted to him to surrender before the trial Court. To buttress the submissions, reliance is placed upon judgments in the cases of CRM-M- 29878-2022, Sardar Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another, decided on 30.08.2022, Uttam Sharma vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM- M-31481-2021, dated 29.09.2021 and Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, CRM-M-13638-2013, decided on 05.08.2013. 3. 4. Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that the petitioner has rightly been declared proclaimed person for having absented. 5. 6. Heard. It is apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C. which reads thus:- “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) xx xxxxxx (3) xx xxxxxx.” 7. In the present case, proclamation was issued on 29.07.2025 and thereafter, affixation of the notice was made, whereby he was directed to appear before the Court on 30.08.2025. Since, the mandatory period of 30 days to appear before the Court had not elapsed, the case stood adjourned to 09.09.2025, for the period to be completed, which is in teeth of the law laid down in that regard. A gainful reference can be made to the judgment in Ashok Kumar (supra), relevant PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.12.15 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70578-2025(O&M) para of which reads thus: 3 “A copy of the proclamation was also affixed at conspicuous part of the Court house, which means that the publication was effected on 9.2.2013 for 6.3.2013, which shows that after the publication of the notice, the accused was not given the mandatory period of 30 days to appear before the Court. The mere fact that the Court adjourned it after the period of 30 days will not be treated as compliance of the provisions of Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C.” 8. The aforesaid judgment was relied upon in Uttam Sharma (supra), wherein the order of proclamation was set aside, as a clear 30 days time from the date of publication was not afforded before issuing absconding warrant against the accused as per the statutory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. 9. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the requisite procedure as mandated by Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not completely followed in letter and spirit, thus, the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process and deserve to be quashed, as held in Ramesh Chandra vs. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1634. 10. In view of the afore-mentioned judgments and the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 18.09.2025, Annexure P-2, is set aside, subject to surrender by the petitioner before the trial Court on or before 04.01.2026 and payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited with Shree Mata Mansa Devi Bhandar Committee Charitable Trust (Regd.) having its Account No.50100238189041, IFSC Code-HDFC0000108, HDFC Bank, Sector-8, Panchkula. On furnishing bail/surety bonds, the trial Court shall release him on bail subject to its satisfaction. He is also directed to furnish an undertaking by way of an affidavit that he will appear on each and every date of hearing before the trial Court, unless specifically exempted by the Court. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. The trial Court may impose any PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.12.15 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-70578-2025(O&M) 4 other condition that it may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. 12.
Decision
The petition is disposed of. Before parting with this order, it is made abundantly clear that in case the petitioner does not adhere to the aforesaid, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 15.12.2025 parveen kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes / No Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.12.15 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.