High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/44767/2025disposed of

Jaspal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2025-08-19Ms. Justice Aaradhna Sawhney6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 19.08.2025 Jaspal Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present :

Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the petitioner.

***** AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL) 1.

Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No. 254 dated 03.11.2022 registered under Sections 325, 323, 201, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Fazilka, has prayed for setting aside/quashing the order dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fazilka, vide which he (Petitioner) was declared a 'Proclaimed Offender'.

Learned counsel submits that after the registration of the FIR, petitioner was granted the concession of bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure P-2). Challan was filed on the same day and the case was adjourned to 04.11.2023 for framing of charges, when petitioner and other accused were charge-sheeted under Section 323, 325, 148, 149, 201 IPC. Thereafter, case was adjourned to 16.02.2024 for recording prosecution evidence. Learned counsel further submits that unfortunately petitioner was roped in, in another false case bearing FIR No.95 dated 25.05.2024 under Sections 363, 366-A IPC on the allegations that he (Petitioner) had enticed a minor girl. On account of the aforesaid reason, petitioner could not appear before the learned trial Court on 19.07.2024. Learned trial Court, however, hastily proceeded to cancel the

bail and forfeited the bail bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner. His presence was ordered to be secured through non-bailable warrants for 29.08.2024. On 30.10.2024, as stands recorded in the order sheet (copy of which has been appended along with the petition), though, non-bailable warrants were received back unexecuted, but the learned trial Court, without there being any cogent evidence/document on the case file, assumed that petitioner is deliberately avoiding to appear before the Court, as also that he has absconded, thus, initiated proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C., directing the petitioner to appear in the Court on 19.12.2024. It is further the case of petitioner that the statement of the executing constable could not be recorded on various dates (19.12.2024, 18.01.2025, 11.02.2025, 13.03.2025 and 11.04.2025).

The case was adjourned to 08.05.2025, when the statement of executing constable was recorded and the petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Offender on 04.06.2025. Further, order dated 08.05.2025, does not mention as to when the written publication of proclamation was executed against the petitioner, so as to enable him to approach the learned trial Court. The copies of the interim orders that have been placed on record have been perused.

!"#$$% & #'() *

+ ,-

. -

%# )

!"#$$% & #'() *

. *

1"23 )456

6((

!- 7

8 ")4459& 2 ,):%6 - *

;

0 ")4(49&%#(

2 ,

" #$#$#

664 -<

> ?, "#$)'%

)((

2 . ,

"#$)65

''$

- *

%# #

A +

+ B * B

B %# #

;

* < / " )4:6 9& )6(% <

- -

/ !

")4'%9&4(' - * .

%##

%# -

/ !

" )4'% 9&4(' +* %##

C D

!- 7 ! 8

")4459&):%6

* ")4''9&6)% 3.

It is, thus, clear that the Cout which issues proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., must record specific reason/satisfaction that the accused against whom the proceedings are being initiated has absconded or concealed himself to evade the arrest. As noted hereinabove, even though warrants of arrest issued against petitioner were received back unexecuted, learned Magistrate presumed (in the absence of any cogent document) that service has been effected upon petitioner, who is deliberately avoiding to appear in the Court. There is nothing on record that the executing constable had complied with all the prerequisites of Section 82 Cr.P.C., in the sense that he had apart from pasting a copy of the proclamation outside the house of petitioner had also read the declaration publicly in some conspicuous place etc. Most importantly, order dated 08.05.2025 was silent as to when written publication of Petitioner was executed against him, so as to enable him to approach the learned trial Court.

Resultantly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 04.06.2025, whereby the petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender, is set aside.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the learned trial Court on the date fixed i.e. 15.09.2025.

Heard.

In view of the facts mentioned hereinabove, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Court concerned on 15.09.2025. He shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner would also submit specific undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial in future and the proceedings would not be delayed because of his conduct.

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE 19.08.2025 Hemant Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No