JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 06.12.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person, in complaint case bearing No.CHI/120/2022 titled as “State of Punjab versus Amanpreet Singh”, in FIR No.10 dated 17.01.2022, registered under Sections 406, 420 of IPC, at Police Station Nabha, District Patiala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared proclaimed person, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has argued that non-appearance of the petitioner was an inadvertent mistake, as he could not get to know the date of hearing from his counsel before the Court below, despite making time and again efforts. Learned counsel has submitted that, vide order dated 24.09.2025, the application seeking exemption from personal appearance of the petitioner as well as bail was declined, and the bail bonds were forfeited to the State, with non-bailable warrants having been issued against the petitioner for 14.10.2025. Learned counsel has submitted that it was mentioned in the order dated 14.10.2025 that non-bailable warrants were received back unexecuted, and therefore, proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. was issued against the petitioner for 14.11.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that on 14.11.2025, the case was adjourned to 06.12.2025 awaiting appearance of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further argued that, ultimately, vide impugned order dated 06.12.2025, the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person.

2.1. Learned counsel has further argued that proclamation issued against the petitioner was in gross violation of provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C./ Section 84 of the BNSS. A perusal of the statement dated 07.11.2025 of the serving official reveals that the proclamation was not read in some conspicuous place. Learned counsel has argued that, still the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, vide impugned order by the Court below.

2.2. Learned counsel has argued that, thus, the order, declaring the petitioner proclaimed person, is in gross violation of law and principles of natural justice as there was no deliberate evasion or non-appearance on the part of the petitioner. On the basis of these submissions, learned counsel has prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside being illegal and unjustified.

3. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit dated 31.03.2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments were advanced on merits, contending that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that vide order dated 21.02.2022, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was allowed by the Court below, and therefore, the petitioner caused appearance before the Court on 11.07.2022 and furnished personal bonds, however, he failed to furnish surety bonds, and thereafter, continuously absented himself from the court proceedings. It has been further submitted that consequently, bailable warrants following by non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner, but he had chosen not to cause appearance before the trial Court. Learned State counsel has further argued that ultimately, leanred Court below issued proclamation against the petitioner, and finally, vide impugned order dated 06.12.2025, declared the petitioner as a proclaimed person after following the procedure as laid-down under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C., 1973/ Section 84 of the BNSS, in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever