Sonu Goswami v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-17678-2026 -1-
!" #$%$ &' ()*$+,
' -. /0 //
! !
" # $$$ / ,1 .2' % "
&
'( +)+, & +, )- +)+, )( ''
+)+,! . / ! 012 ''* ++ )3 +)+4
! 4)5 +'+ +'( 4, 1 . ! +3 ! '-3-
! &
!.
+ % " !
! !
!
+'
)3 +)+4
!6 !! !
! "
!
7
!
01
! %
CRM-M-17678-2026 -2- 8
+- )+ +)+,
. .66-*')6+)+, %
. 9
'( +)+,
!
! !
!
" ! !" 8! % +, )- +)+, !
! *+.
.
)( ''
+)+, '+ '+ +)+, :'+ '+ +)+, !
! !" ! ! 8!
! !
! !
)'
), +)+( ! ! 8!
! !
: )'
), +)+(
!
! ! )* )3 +)+( , 1 !
! '( +)+,
!! !
9
! !
2!
!
9 !
. ! 1
2 !
CRM-M-17678-2026 -3- ( ; ! ! ! 1
'( +)+,
! !
6 ! 1 &
! ! %
This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 8.
A perusal of the zimni orders passed by the learned trial Court and copies of which have been placed on record, has revealed that bail of the petitioner was cancelled as on 16.08.2024 on account of his non-appearance and proclamation was ordered to be issued against him on 24.09.2024 for 06.11.2024 and then for 12.12.2024. On 12.12.2024, though proclamation issued against the petitioner had been received back duly effected but since the police official who had published the proclamation had not appeared to get his statement recorded and as the statutory period of 30 days as required under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. (pari materia with Section 84 of BNSS) had not expired, therefore, the matter was adjourned further for awaiting appearance of the petitioner and also for recording statement of the serving police official.
Further fresh proclamation was ordered to be issued against him for 19.05.2025 vide order dated 18.03.2025. On 19.05.2025, no order qua publication of proclamation was passed and then again the case was adjourned for recording statement of serving police official which is continuing till date.
CRM-M-17678-2026 -4On a collective perusal of all these orders, it is apparent that though the learned trial Court passed orders as to issuance of proclamation as against the petitioner on different dates of hearing, however, without going through the previous orders and taking care of the fact that what exact steps were required to be taken, had kept on adjourning the case sometime for recording statement of serving police official and sometime by abruptly issuing fresh proclamation proceedings. However, at the same time, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 16.08.2024, whereby the bail of the petitioner was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the State.
The explanation given by the petitioner for his non-appearance does not appear to be convincing in the absence of any document to show that he was infact unable to appear before the learned trial Court on 16.08.2024.
However, at the same time, while noticing the fact that learned trial Court has issued proclamations against the petitioner and has unnecessarily adjourned the case further for recording statement of the executing police official and further taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is willing to appear before the learned trial Court and to join further proceedings, the petition is disposed of by giving direction to the petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court within a period of 15 days from today and to move an application for grant of bail, on his doing so, and on furnishing fresh personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, it shall admit the petitioner to bail.
CRM-M-17678-2026 -5case is not unnecessarily adjourned for the purpose of recording statement of serving constable and proper and effective orders are passed. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court.
!
! ! 3/ 4 ()*$+,