IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-70578-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.12.2025 Kuldeep Singh @ Bau Pehalwan ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Umaid Singh Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 18.09.2025, vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in FIR No.23 dated 23.05.2024, registered under Sections 21, 23, 29 & 61/85 of NDPS Act, at Police Station Amir Khas, District Fazilka.

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the above-noted FIR, wherein he along with Panchayat members, appeared before the SSP, who assured him that he was nominated due to confusion qua his name. Thus, he did not appear before the trial Court, whereupon, notices/warrants were issued against him and proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued and statement of the serving official was recorded on 30.08.2025, wherein it was stated that period of 30 days has not elapsed. Thus, the procedure mandated under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had not been followed, as he was declared proclaimed person without affording him the pre-requisite time period of 30 days to appear before the trial Court. He 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. Notice of motion.

4. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and submits that the petitioner has rightly been declared proclaimed person for having absented.

5. Heard.

6. 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 xxxxxx (3) xx xxxxxx.”

7. In the present case, proclamation was issued on 29.07.2025 and thereafter, affixation of the notice was made, whereby he was directed to appear before the Court on 30.08.2025. Since, the mandatory period of 30 days to appear before the Court had not elapsed, the case stood adjourned to 09.09.2025, 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 adjourned it after the period of 30 days will not be treated as compliance of the provisions of Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C.”

8. The aforesaid judgment was relied upon in Uttam Sharma (supra), wherein the order of proclamation was set aside, as a clear 30 days time from the date of publication was not afforded before issuing absconding warrant against the accused as per the statutory provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C.

9. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the requisite procedure as mandated by Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not completely followed in l