CRM-M-72848 v. SURYA PARTAP SINGH

, which led to filing of FIR No.153 dated

04.10.1991, in Police Station Shahkot, Jalandhar 04.10.1991 Jalandhar.

3. shell, the facts emerging from record are that the In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 326, 324, 323, 148, 149 of IPC and in case, he and in the abovementioned case, he was on bail, but later on when he could not was on bail appear before the learned trial he could not appear before the learned trial the learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the Court on 06.06.2000, the learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the the learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the Court on petitioner and issued warrant of arrest. petitioner and Thereafter, on various occasions, Thereafter, on various occasions, non-bailable warrants bailable warrants were issued, however, the same could not be executed were issued, however, the same could not be executed as the petitioner had the petitioner had left for a foreign country left for a foreign country.

4. Subsequently, vide order dated 13.02.2001, learned trial Court Subsequently, vide order dated 13.02.2001, learned trial Court Subsequently, vide order dated 13.02.2001, learned trial Court for 15.03.2001, however, on issued proclamation against the petitioner for 15.03.2001, however, on issued proclamation against the petitioner issued proclamation against the petitioner learned 15.03.2001, the Executing Constable was not present. Thereafter, the learned 15.03.2001, the Executing Constable was not present. Thereafter, the 15.03.2001, the Executing Constable was not present. Thereafter, the trial Court vide order dated 19.04.2001 issued the proclamation again, trial Court vide order dated 19.04.2001 issued trial Court vide order dated 19.04.2001 issued

17.07.2001. On 17.07.2001, the proclamation issued against the petitioner 17.07.2001. On 17.07.2001, the proclamation issued against the petitioner 17.07.2001. On 17.07.2001, the proclamation issued against the petitioner 17.07.2001. On 17.07.2001, the proclamation issued against the petitioner was duly effected, but Serving Constable was not present and the case was was duly effected, but Serving Constable was not present and the case was was duly effected, but Serving Constable was not present and the case was was duly effected, but Serving Constable was not present and the case was adjourned to 20.08.2001. Consequently, adjourned to 20.08.2001. Consequently, on 20.08.2001, erving the serving Constable was summoned and his statement Constable the Court. his statement was recorded by the Court was declared a Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order, the petitioner was declared a Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order, Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order, proclaimed offender. proclaimed offender.

6. Notice of motion. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, appears on behalf of Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears on behalf of Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab respondent-State, and waives service. respondent GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.14 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72848 72848-2025(O&M) 8587 3

7. Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. Memorandum of Appearance has been of the complainant The same . Memorandum of Appearance has been filed. The same be taken on record. be taken on record.

9. Heard. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned trial Court has committed an error when without following due process, it trial Court has committed an error when without following due process, it trial Court has committed an error when without following due process, it trial Court has committed an error when without following due process, it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. declared the petitioner to be a further proclaimed person. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, against the petitioner is defective in view of fact that the proclamation issued against the petitioner is defective in view of fact that the against the petitioner is defective in view of fact that the proclamation proclamation for 17.07.2001 was issued by the le proclamation arned trial Court on was issued by the learned trial Court on

19.04.2001. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, 19.04.2001 30 days’ period as . As per learned counsel for the petitioner, 30 days’ period as mandated under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was not mandated under afforded to the petitioner, for was not afforded to the petitioner, for appearance in the Court. It has also been pointed appearance in the Court by learned counsel for . It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that even the affixation of proclamation was not as per the petitioner that even the affixation of proclamation was not as per petitioner that even the affixation of proclamation was not as per petitioner that even the affixation of proclamation was not as per prescribed provisions, as the Executing Constable prescribed provisions not publicly read the as the Executing Constable did not publicly read the contents of the abovementioned proclamation. contents of the abovementioned proclamation. contents of the abovementioned proclamation.

10. In addition to above, it has been alleged by the petitioner that In addition to above, it has been alleged by the petitioner th In addition to above, it has been alleged by the petitioner th because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, in because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender, the impugned order is declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender, the impugned order is declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender, the impugned order is declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. liable to be set aside.

11. Per contra, the learned State Counsel being assisted by learned , the learned State Counsel being assisted by learned has argued that the petitioner is a person, who counsel for the complainant has argued that the petitioner is a person, who has argued that the petitioner is a person, who counsel for last appeared before the Court in the year 2000 last appeared before the Court and thereafter he absconded. in the year 2000 and thereafter he absconded. The learned State earned State Counsel has argued that in the present c ase, the petitioner ounsel has argued that in the present case, the petitioner is a person who right from the very beginning is a person was aware of the pendency of eginning was aware of the pendency of GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.14 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72848 72848-2025(O&M) 8587 4 criminal proceedings against him, and that the petitioner is the person, who, criminal proceedings against him, and that the petitioner is the person, who, criminal proceedings against him, and that the petitioner is the person, who, criminal proceedings against him, and that the petitioner is the person, who, of bail with impunity, and took the law in his own violated the conditions of bail with impunity, and took the law in his own of bail with impunity, and took the law in his own violated the condition pending hands and went abroad without caring for the criminal proceedings pending hands and went abroad without caring for the criminal proceedings hands and went abroad without caring for the criminal proceedings As per learned State Counsel, since the petitioner himself opted against him. As per learned State Counsel, since the petitioner himself opted As per learned State Counsel, since the petitioner himself opted against him. not to appear before the Court, and remained absent for long, not to appear before the Court, now he cannot and remained absent for long, now he cannot draw benefit of any technical defect, which could not be draw benefit of any technical , which could not be followed followed in proclaimed offender. declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender. declaring the petitioner

13. The record has been perused carefully. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has placed on record the copy of statement of the Executing Constable recorded by the the copy of statement of the Executing Constable recorded by the copy of statement of the Executing Constable recorded by the the petitioner to be learned trial Court, before passing the order of declaring the petitioner to be learned trial Court, before passing the order learned trial Court, before passing the order a proclaimed offender. The statement of Executing Constable, namely a proclaimed offender. The statement of Executing Constable, namely a proclaimed offender. The statement of Executing Constable, namely a proclaimed offender. The statement of Executing Constable, namely Santokh Singh dated Singh dated 17.07.2001 reads as under reads as under:- Sir, it is kindly submitted here that I along with Chowkidar “Sir, it is kindly submitted here that I along with Chowkidar Sir, it is kindly submitted here that I along with Chowkidar Kakkar duly published the proclamation of Kewal Singh R/o Kakkar duly published the proclamation of Kewal Singh R/o Kalan. One copy was pasted in open place of the Village, Kalan. One copy was pasted in open place of the Village, Kalan. One copy was pasted in open place of the Village, Mundai was got conducted. The Mundai was got conducted. The Mundai was got conducted. The impression of impression of impression of esent. There is no property of Chowkidar Boota Singh is present. There is no property of Chowkidar Boota Singh is pr accused.’

14. A perusal of the record further further shows:- (a) that the learned trial Court (a) declared the petitioner to be a the learned trial Court declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender merely on the basis of affixation of proclaimed offender merely on the basis of affixation of proclaimed offender merely on the basis of affixation of proclamation issued for 17.07.2001, whereas as per laid down proclamation issued for 17.07.2001, whereas as per laid down proclamation issued for 17.07.2001, whereas as per laid down procedure, if the statement of Executing Constable could not be procedure, if the statement of Executing Constable could not be procedure, if the statement of Executing Constable could not be

20.08.2001, fresh recorded on 17.07.2001 for next date, i.e. 20.08.2001, fresh recorded on 17.07.2001 for next date, i.e. proclamation should have been issued; should have been issued; and (b) that from the date of affixation of (b) proclamation at least 30 days’ from the date of affixation of proclamation at least 30 days’ time should have been afforded to the petitioner to appear time should have been afforded to the petitioner to appear time should have been afforded to the petitioner to appear GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.14 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72848 72848-2025(O&M) 8587 5 before the Court, but in the instant case, the date fixed for before the Court, but in the instant case, the date fixed for before the Court, but in the instant case, the date fixed for

17.07.2001 and on the same appearance before the Court was 17.07.2001 and on the same appearance before the Court was day, proclamation was affixed. day, proclamation was affixed.

15. mentioned statement of the A bare perusal of the abovementioned statement of the A bare perusal of the above Executing Constable shows that the said Executing Constable did not Executing Constable shows that the said Executing Constable did not affix the proclamation on the notice board of the Court at the conspicuous the proclamation place in on the notice board of the Court at the conspicuous place in

20.08.2001 the locality where the petitioner last resided. The order dated 20.08.2001 the locality where the petitioner last resided the locality where the petitioner last resided shows that merely on the basis of above shows that me mentioned statement of the rely on the basis of abovementioned statement of the Executing Constable, the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person Executing Constable, the petitioner has been declared Executing Constable, the petitioner has been declared person.

16. mentioned procedure adopted by the With regard to the above-mentioned procedure adopted by the mentioned procedure adopted by the (2) of Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention here that Section 82(2) of Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention Executing Constable, it is relevant to mention CrPC lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before lays down that following steps are necessary to be taken before that following steps are necessary to be taken before declaring a person to be a proclaimed person:- declaring a person to be a proclaimed person: declaring a person to be a proclaimed person: “(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:- “(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place (i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place person of the town or village in which such of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; ordinarily resides; (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the in which such person house or homestead in which such person house or homestead in which such person house or homestead ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village; such town or village; a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous (c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court rt of the Court-house; (ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily the proclamation to be published in a daily the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such newspaper circulating in the place in which such newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.” person ordinarily resides.”

17. With regard to mandatory nature of above oned procedure, rd to mandatory nature of abovementioned procedure, it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of it has been repeatedly observed by this Court, that the compliance of is mandatory in abovementioned provisions of Section 82(2) of CrPC is mandatory in abovementioned provisions of Section abovementioned provisions of Section GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.14 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72848 72848-2025(O&M) 8587 6 nature. It has also been held that in case the above process is not followed nature. It has also been held that in case the above process is not nature. It has also been held that in case the above process is not followed in order declaring a person to be a proclaimed letter and spirit, the impugned order declaring a person to be a proclaimed order declaring a person to be a proclaimed letter and spirit, the offender/proclaimed person is defective. offender/proclaimed person is defective.

18. Tirlok Chand Vs. State of Haryana In this regard in the case of Tirlok Chand Vs. State of Haryana Tirlok Chand Vs. State of Haryana 2023(2) Law Herald 1545, this High Court observed that if a procl 2023(2) Law Herald 1545 amation , this High Court observed that if a proclamation is issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and is issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and is issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and is issued for appearance of an accused on a fixed date before the Court, and on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh on that date he is not declared proclaimed person, for subsequent date fresh proclamation should be issued. Similar view has been taken proclamation should be issued. S in the cases of imilar view has been taken in the cases of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab & Another (CRM Jarnail Singh v. St 27944 of 2024, ate of Punjab & Another (CRM-M-27944 of 2024, decided on 04.09.2024) and Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab (CRM- decided on 04.09.2024) and Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab (CRM decided on 04.09.2024) and Gagandeep Singh v. State of Punjab (CRM -M- 2024, decided on 28.11.2024). 50704- 2024, decided on 28.11.2024)

19. that the In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that the In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention statement of where depicts that the proclamation was ement of Executing Constable nowhere depicts that the proclamation was where depicts that the proclamation was affixed at a public place in the vicinity where the petitioner ordinarily at a public place in the vicinity where the petitioner ordinarily vicinity where the petitioner ordinarily , as prescribed , nor it was pasted on the notice board of the Court, as prescribed , nor it was pasted on the notice board of the Court resides, nor it was pasted on the notice board of the Court under Section 82(2)(i)(b) & (c) of CrPC. Thus, under Section 8 r declaring . Thus, the impugned order declaring said person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offender is the abovesaid person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offender is said person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offender is the above defective and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken defective and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken defective and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken defective and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State AIR 1955 by this High Court in the cases of Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State AIR 1955 Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State AIR 1955 by this High Court in the cases of Punjab 18 and Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (CRM Punjab 18 2024, r Singh v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-21736-2024, decided on 07.05.2024). On this account also decided on 07.05.2024) mentioned . On this account also, the abovementioned proclamation seems to be defective. proclamation seems to be defective.

20. With regard to failure of learned trial Court to give 30 days’ With regard to failure of learned trial Court to give 30 days’ With regard to failure of learned trial Court to give 30 days’ time to the accused to appear before the Court after proclamation, this Court time to the accused to appear before the Court after proclamation, this Court time to the accused to appear before the Court after proclamation, this Court time to the accused to appear before the Court after proclamation, this Court GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.14 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72848 72848-2025(O&M) 8587 7 in the case of ‘Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. in the case of 1866- Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.’ in CRM-M-1866 2017 has has observed as under:- oted provision is clear that through the “The above quoted provision is clear that through the oted provision is clear that through the proclamation made prior to declaration of a person as a proclamation made prior to declaration of a person as a proclamation made prior to declaration of a person as a proclaimed offender, he should be given not less than thirty proclaimed offender, he should be given not less than thirty proclaimed offender, he should be given not less than thirty days from the date of its proclamation to appear at a specified days from the date of its proclamation to appear at a specified days from the date of its proclamation to appear at a specified place and a specified time. e case in hand, thirty days were not given to the petitioner In the case in hand, thirty days were not given to the petitioner e case in hand, thirty days were not given to the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court as the proclamation was made to appear before the Trial Court as the proclamation was made to appear before the Trial Court as the proclamation was made on 13.05.2011 requiring him to appear before the Trial Court on 13.05.2011 requiring him to appear before the Trial Court on 13.05.2011 requiring him to appear before the Trial Court on 14.05.2011. Thus, the proclamation and the subsequent on 14.05.2011. Thus, the proclamation and the subsequent on 14.05.2011. Thus, the proclamation and the subsequent order dated 03.09.2011 (Annexure P 2) declaring the petitioner 09.2011 (Annexure P-2) declaring the petitioner do not confirm with the mandate of to be a proclaimed offender do not confirm with the mandate of do not confirm with the mandate of Section 82 (1) of the Code.

21. Taking Taking into consideration into consideration the cumulative effect of the cumulative effect abovementioned factors, as there was a defect in abovementioned fact affixation of proclamation, was a defect in affixation of proclamation reading of summons in public place, and 30 days’ period was reading of summons in public place i.e. non-reading of summons in public place afforded to the petitioner to appear before the Court a afforded to the petitioner to fter affixation of appear before the Court after affixation of proclamation, the order dated 20.08.2001 proclamation, learned trial Court is 20.08.2001passed by the learned trial Court is hereby held to be by held to be perverse, defective and of law. defective and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Resultantly, the present petition is hereby Resultantly, the the impugned order hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 20.08.2001

20.08.2001 passed by the learned trial Court passed by the learned trial Court is hereby quashed.

22. It is however made clear that this order is with regard to legality It is however made clear that this order is with regard to legality It is however made clear that this order is with regard to legality of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail of proclamation only. Since the petitioner had jumped the bail and his bail has been cancelled and bonds have been forfeited to the State, the order of has been cancelled and bonds have been forfeited to the State, the order of has been cancelled and bonds have been forfeited to the State, the order of has been cancelled and bonds have been forfeited to the State, the order of ancellation of bail and issuance of warrant learned trial Court with regard to cancellation of bail and issuance of warrant ancellation of bail and issuance of warrant learned trial Court with regard to c of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the of arrest against the petitioner shall remain intact, and therefore, in case the GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.14 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-72848 72848-2025(O&M) 8587 8 petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court under Section will be at liberty to take the petitioner into custody or proceed under Section will be at liberty to take the petitioner into custod will be at liberty to take the petitioner into custod 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 Cr.P.C). However, in case the petitioner surrenders and file Cr.P.C). However an application in case the petitioner surrenders and files an application the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case within a for bail, the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case within a the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case within a the same be disposed of expeditiously, and in any case within a period of seven days. period of seven days. Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Whether reportable :Yes/No :Yes/No : Yes/No : Yes/ GAURAV THAKUR 2026.01.14 09:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document