IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Atul Kumar ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent Date of reserve: December 09, 2025 Date of pronouncement: December 12, 2025 Judgment pronounced: Full Date of Uploading: December 12, 2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Akun Sheemar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), seeking quashing of entire proclamation proceedings including mode and manner of issuance of warrants of arrest against the petitioner as well as setting aside of impugned order dated 06.01.2024 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person, in case FIR No. 12 dated 22.01.2022, registered for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 506 of the IPC, at Police Station Phillaur District Jalandhar Rural.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. It is argued that the petitioner was released on bail vide order dated 25.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) by the concerned Court upon his furnishing personal bonds. Learned counsel further submits that despite making several efforts, the petitioner could not arrange surety bonds, and accordingly, adjournments were sought by him to comply with the said condition. It is submitted that the petitioner had been appearing regularly, and it was only on 09.03.2023 that he could not appear before the learned Court below due to unavoidable circumstances—yet he voluntarily appeared before the Court on 19.04.2023, explaining his inability to secure surety bonds. Learned counsel asserts that vide order dated 17.07.2023 (Annexure P-6), the learned Court below, in a mechanical manner, cancelled the petitioner’s bail and forfeited the bonds to the State. It is further contended that on 19.08.2023, while relying upon an improper report of service allegedly effected through the petitioner’s son, the learned Court below proceeded to issue proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel argues that without complying with the mandatory requirements of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., without recording satisfaction regarding willful evasion by the petitioner, and without undertaking any statutory publication, the learned Court below, vide impugned order dated 06.01.2024, declared the petitioner a proclaimed person, and even directed registration of an FIR under Section 174-A IPC. Moreover, the factual matrix presented by the petitioner—continued appearance before the Court, inability to furnish surety despite bona fide efforts, and absence of any intentional abscondence—demonstrates that the essential precondition of “deliberate evasion,” which forms the foundation for invoking Section 82 Cr.P.C., is wholly unfulfilled. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable, having been passed in patent violation of the statutory mandate, and is therefore liable to be set aside. Consequently, the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

3. Learned State counsel, while referring to the reply filed by way of an affidavit dated 01.12.2025, already on record, has opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments have been advanced on merits, contending that the son of the petitioner was duly intimated about the issuance of non-bailable warrants, and therefore the petitioner had due knowledge of the same, yet failed to appear before the trial Court. Consequently, i