IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 16.01.2026 Pronounced on: 30.01.2026 Ashok ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.

(through hybrid mode).

Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J. (Oral) :

By virtue of present petition, filed under Section 528 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’, hereinafter referred to as “BNSS” only, the order dated 22.03.2017 (Annexure P-7), hereinafter being referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tosham, hereinafter being referred to as “trial Court”, is under challenge.

2. By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 283 and 427 of Indian Penal Code, hereinafter being referred to as ‘IPC’, and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984, has declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person.

3. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner was facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 283 and 427 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984, and in the abovementioned case a warrant was obtained by the police against the petitioner, on the ground that he was booked in the abovesaid case. As per petitioner the abovesaid warrant was issued against him on 06.01.2017 remained unexecuted, and that the learned trial Court without following the due procedure issued proclamation against petitioner for 03.02.2017 on 20.01.2017 by wrongly recording a satisfaction that the accused was absconding intentionally to avoid trial. Thus, in the backdrop of above events, vide order dated 03.02.2017, the proclamation was issued against the petitioner, which was not received back in any form. Thereafter, fresh proclamation was issued for 21.02.2017 and on that date the case was adjourned to 22.03.2017 for the presence of petitioner, without any order for issuing fresh proclamation.

4. In the order dated 22.03.2017, it has been recorded that the proclamation issued against the petitioner was duly effected. However, on 21.02.2017 when the proclamation remained unexecuted, without issuing fresh publication the cases was adjourned to 22.03.2017 for the presence of petitioner. Consequently, the serving Constable appeared before the Court and his statement was recorded by the learned trial Court on 22.03.2017. Thereafter, on the same day, by virtue of impugned order, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Since advance notice has already been served, Ms. Deepali Verma, AAG, Haryana, appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with.

7. Heard.

8. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the learned trial Court has committed an error when without following due process it declared the petitioner to be a proclaimed person. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, proclamation issued against the petitioner is defective in view of the fact that the proclamation for 03.02.2017 was issued by the learned trial Court on 20.01.2017, and again on 03.02.2017 for 21.02.2017. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the affixation had taken place on 08.02.2017.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the learned trial Court on the basis of assumptions and presumptions deemed the proclamation to be executed instead of issuing fresh publication. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, 30 days’ period, as mandated under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., was not afforded to the petitioner for appearance in the Court. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the proclamation was issued for 21.02.2017 on that day no order for