High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/72850/2025disposed of

Kavish Singla v. State Of Haryana And Another

2026-02-25Ms. Justice Aaradhna Sawhney5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 25.02.2026 Kavish Singla

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

...Respondents

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

Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL) CRM-7297-2026 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Notice dated 01.08.2025 (Annexure P5) is taken on record. Main Case 1.

Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.20 dated 04.02.2021 registered u/s 427, 336 and 279 IPC at Police Station Dhand, District Kaithal, has prayed for setting aside the order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned JMIC, Kaithal vide which he (P) was declared a 'Proclaimed Person'.

The solitary ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the aforesaid order is that the Executing police official namely, ASI Satbir Singh did not read the proclamation at some conspicuous place of town/village/locality where petitioner-accused was residing. Further, as per the report of Executing constable, he went to the house of petitioner, who was not found there, hence affixed the publication notice on the wall of house of petitioner. Thus as per learned counsel, the requirements of sub

clause (i) of Sub Section 2 of Section 82 Cr.P.C were not complied with, which fact escaped the attention of Court. Impugned order dated 29.09.2025, thus being not 'in sync' with the codal requirements, deserves to be set aside. 3.

Heard. Documents on record perused.

At the outset, it needs to be ascertained as to whether the procedural requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. were complied with by learned Magistrate before declaring petitioner 'Proclaimed Person'. In this context, before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in

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

+ ,-

. -

%# )

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

. *

1"23 )456

6((

!- 7

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

;

0 ")4(49&%#(

2 ,

" #$#$#

664 -<

> ?, "#$)'%

)((

2 . ,

"#$)65

''$ - *

%# #

A +

+ B * B

B %## >

;

* < / ")4:69&)6(% <

- -

/ !

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

%##

- -

%# -

/ !

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

C D

!- 7 ! 8

")4459&):%6

* ")4''9&6)% Reverting back to the facts of the case in hand, there is nothing in the report of the executing constable from where it can be inferred that he had read the proclamation order at the site, which he was required to do. In

view of the said flaw, it is evident that there has been no compliance of sub clause (i) of Sub Section 2 of Section 82 Cr.P.C. 5.

Resultantly, the present petition stands allowed. Impugned order dated 29.09.2025 (Annexure P-2) is set aside. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Court concerned within a period of 10 days from today. In case, he surrenders before the Court concerned within 10 days from today, he be released on furnishing fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. He is also directed to furnish an undertaking by way of an affidavit that he will appear on each and every date of hearing before the trial Court, unless specifically exempted by the Court. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. The trial Court may impose any other condition that it may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Before parting with this order, it is made abundantly clear that in case the petitioner does not adhere to the aforesaid conditions, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court.

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE 25.02.2026 Hemant Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No