Pardeep Kumar v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-67476-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-67476-2025 Date of Decision: 02.12.2025 PARDEEP KUMAR .....PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL

Present:

Mr. Yajur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** H.S. GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of the entire proclamation proceedings including mode and manner of issuance of warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner as well as setting aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 in case bearing No.NACT/105/2018 dated 14.05.2018 vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been regularly appearing before the trial Court since 26.10.2018, and the record reflects that it was the complainant who sought repeated adjournments for more than a year. He further submits that the petitioner's absence on certain dates was neither intentional nor deliberate. He further submits that on 09.12.2019, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court, as a result of which his bail was cancelled and the surety bonds were forfeited to the State, and non-bailable warrants were issued. It is further submitted that on 04.01.2020, Renu Rawat 2025.12.04 10.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-67476-2025 the non-bailable warrants were returned unserved with a vague report stating that the petitioner had gone abroad and the trial Court ordered proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. It is contended that the mandatory requirements under Section 82(2) Cr.P.C. were not complied with. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the proceedings before the trial Court and, therefore, prays that the impugned order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person be set aside.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file.

6.

In view of the limited prayer made by the petitioner, this Court does not find any legitimate ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 passed by ld. JMIC, Dasuya. However, in case the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court within a period of 07 days at 10:00 A.M from today and moves an application for grant of regular bail, the trial Court shall consider and decide the same on the very same day in accordance with law. 7.

With these observations, the present petition stands disposed of. (H.S.GREWAL) 02.12.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/ reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No Renu Rawat 2025.12.04 10.10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document