Inderjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

were no ot complied with in letter and spirit. He is s ready and willing to join the pr roceedings and it is prayed that

one opportunity may be granted to him to surrender before learned trial Court, which may be even subject to costs. To buttress his submission, reliance is placed on the judgments of this Court in Gurbir Singh Mundi vs. State of Punjab and another CRM-M-49283-2021, decided on 16.12.2021.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

At the asking of the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and submits that the order passed against the petitioner is legal and valid on account of the fact that he had absented from the proceedings before the trial Court without any just cause.

5.

6.

In Gurbir Singh Mundi (supra), it was held that provisions of Section 82(2) Cr.PC. are to be mandatorily complied with cumulatively and not alternatively. The Court had quashed the order declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed person on the ground that declaration was not read publicly in some conspicuous place of town or village, in which the accused ordinarily resides.

7.

In Sonu vs. State of Haryana, 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319, it was held that any non-compliance in the procedure prescribed in declaring a proclaimed person, cannot be treated as an irregularity but the same renders such proceedings a nullity.

8.

This Court in Satvir Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, CRM-M-27621-2025, 20.05.2025, while relying on Rohit Kumar vs. State of Delhi 2008 Crl. J. 2561, has held that Court must be

prima facie satisfied that the person absconded or is concealed himself so that warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite due diligence.

9.

The very purpose of issuance of summons, warrants etc. is to compel and secure the presence of the accused to face trial and establish the rule of law so as to ensure finalization of the proceedings. 10.

Considering the fact that the absence of the petitioner was not wilful or deliberate and his readiness and willingness to surrender and join the proceedings, in case one opportunity is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice shall be caused to any of the parties, rather his joining the proceedings would help in expediting the trial. This Court in light of the judgments referred to above being applicable to the instant case, finds that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the present petition is allowed.

11.

In view of the afore-mentioned judgments and the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 20.12.2024, Annexure P-5, is set aside.

12.

He is directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 31.03.2026 and on so doing, shall release him on bail subject to its satisfaction and