The court reaffirmed that failure to follow the mandatory 30-day notice under Section 82 Cr.P.C. when declaring an absconder invalidates the proceedings, emphasizing adherence to legal processes.

JUDGMENT :

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

CRM-38529-2025

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same stands allowed. Main case is preponed and taken on board today itself.

CRM-M-47054-2025

1. Prayer made in the present petition for quashing the order dated 02.08.2025, vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender in FIR No.177 dated 29.10.2024, registered under Sections 22 , 61 and 85 of NDPS Act at Police Station South Moga, District Moga.

2. Learned counsel submits that the FIR was registered against the petitioner on 29.10.2024, Annexure P-5, which according to him is a case, wherein contraband had been planted upon her to harass and teach a lesson. Thereafter, she had approached this Court by filing anticipatory bail application, which was however, dismissed on 15.07.2025, Annexure P-14 and SLP against the same was also dismissed on 18.07.2025, Annexure P-15. Consequently, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 02.08.2025 holding that she was deliberately concealing herself while as a matter of fact, she was availing of the remedy available to her for grant of anticipatory bail. The proclamation was effected on 02.07.2025 and from the date of statement of serving constable, the case was adjourned to 15.07.2025, thereafter, only to complete the 30 days period, it was further adjourned to 02.08.2025. The procedure mandated under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had not been followed, as the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender without affording her the pre- requisite time period of 30 days to appear before the trial Court. She is ready and willing to join the proceedings and prays that one last opportunity may be granted to him to surrender before the trial Court. To buttress the submissions, reliance is placed upon judgments in the cases of CRM-M-29878-2022, Sardar Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another , decided on 30.08.2022, Uttam Sharma vs. State of Punjab and another , CRM-M-31481-2021, dated 29.09.2021 and Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another , CRM-M-13638-2013, decided on 05.08.2013.

3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the order passed against the petitioner is legal and valid on account of the fact that he had absented from the proceedings before the trial Court without any just cause.

4. Heard.

5. It is apposite to refer to the provisions of Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C. which reads thus:-

“82. Proclamation for person absconding. -

(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.

(2) xx xx xx xx

(3) xx xx xx xx.”

6. In the present case, proclamation was issued on 05.05.2025 and thereafter, affixation of the notice was on 02.07.2025, whereby he was directed to appear before the Court on 15.07.2025. Since, the mandatory period of 30 days to appear before the Court had not elapsed, the case stood adjourned to 02.08.2025, for the period to be completed, which is in teeth of the law laid down in that regard. A gainful reference can be made to the judgment in Ashok Kumar (supra), relevant para of which reads thus:

“A copy of the proclamation was also affixed at conspicuous part of the Court house, which means that the publication was effected on 9.2.2013 for 6.3.2013, which shows that after the publication of the notice, the accused was not given the mandatory period of 30 days to appear before the Court. The mere fact that the Court