Jasvir Singh Dhillon v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 03.02.2026 Jasvir Singh Dhillon ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate and Mr. Gurjot Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.

***** SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral) CRM-3847-2026 The present application filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying for stay of the proceedings arising out of the impugned order dated 08.01.1987 (Annexure P-4). In view of the reasons mentioned in the application and upon oral request made by learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, the main petition, which is fixed for hearing on 15.07.2026 is taken up on Board today itself.

CRM stands disposed of.

CRM-M-27518-2025 1.

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.01.1987

( 2 ) (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, in a case bearing FIR No.488 dated 04.11.1984, registered under Sections 307 , 34 of IPC and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of Arms Act (Sections 302, 148 and 149 of IPC were added later on), at Police Station Nurmahal, District Jalandhar, vide which, petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner figured during the investigation of the present case; however, at the relevant time, he was out of the country. No information was ever received by him, nor was he made aware in any manner, regarding the pendency of the present FIR. It is further submitted that neither the co-accused nor their family members are related to the petitioner in any manner. It is further submitted that the other co-accused, namely Sat Pal Singh, Harminder Singh, and Jasbir Singh, were acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment dated 19.04.1990 (Annexure P-7), which has attained finality as the State did not file any appeal against the said judgment. It is further submitted that the present petitioner, namely Jasvir Singh Dhillon, intends to return to India and is ready to surrender before the learned trial Court and face trial. Accordingly, a prayer is made that the petitioner be not arrested by the police.

3.

Learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner deliberately failed to appear before the trial Court, he absented from the Court and was declared proclaimed person.

4.

Heard.

( 3 ) 5.

Keeping in view the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner intends to return to India and is ready to surrender before the learned competent Court and face trial, the present petition is disposed of and the petitioner is directed to surrender/appear before the learned Court concerned within two months i.e. upto 02.04.2026 and to move an appropriate application by raising all the pleas taken in this petition, before the competent Court regarding his non-appearance. The Court concerned is directed to decide his application expeditiously in accordance with law. Till then, he will not be arrested by the police in this matter if he return back to India. It is made clear that if he fails to appear before the Court concerned within stipulated time i.e. upto 02.04.2026 then the relief granted by this Court shall be deemed to be withdrawn. 6.

However, it is made clear that whenever the petitioner returns to India, he will not leave India without prior permission of competent Court and State is directed to intimate the concerned Police Station qua this. ( SUBHAS MEHLA ) 03.02.2026 JUDGE Geeta Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No