##PAGE1##

CRM-M-16031-2026 (O&M) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

175 CRM-M-16031-2026 (O&M)

DECIDED ON: 24.03.2026

HEMPREET SINGH

.....PETITIONER VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

.....RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Ravinder Singh Randhawa, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Lachhman Singh and Ms. Harmeet Kaur, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

The order dated 31.08.2023 (Annexure P-2), hereinafter being

referred to as ‘impugned order’, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Ludhiana, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only, is under challenge in the present petition. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,

hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’ only.

2. By virtue of abovementioned order, the learned trial Court while holding a trial for the commission of offence punishable under

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-16031-2026 (O&M) 2

Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of Indian Penal Code, 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 Section 279, 337, 338 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. However, when on 15.03.2023, the petitioner did not appear before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner, forfeited the bonds to the State and issued non-bailable warrants against him. The record shows that on various occasions, the non-bailable warrants, issued against the petitioner, could not be executed, as it was recorded that the petitioner had

gone to Canada.

4. Subsequently, vide order dated 12.07.2023, the learned trial Court issued the proclamation against the petitioner for 31.08.2023, and directed the serving Constable to affix the same by 29.07.2023. Thereafter, by virtue of impugned order dated 31.08.2023 the learned trial Court, after recording the statement of the executing Constable, declared the petitioner a

proclaimed person.

5. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner by alleging that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed, as the necessary procedure, prescribed under Section 84 of the BNSS (erstwhile Section 82 of CrPC), was not complied with, while declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person. In this regard, it has been specifically alleged by the petitioner that the proclamation was not publicly

read, as prescribed under the law.

GAURAV THAKUR 2026.03.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-16031-2026 (O&M) 3

6. Notice of motion

7. Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab appears on behalf of respondent-State. Hence service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed

with.

8. Heard.

9. 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. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one of the essential steps to be taken during the course of proclamation was the reading of proclamation at a public place, and that in the present case the executing Constable had not read the

proclamation at a public place.

10. In addition to above, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that because of defective procedure adopted by the learned trial Court, in declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed person, the

impugned order is liable to be set aside.

11. Per contra, the learned State Counsel has argued that the petitioner is the person, who, violated the conditions of bail with impunity, and took the law in his own hands and jumped the bail. The learned State Counsel has argued that in view of above the petitioner cannot be permitted to derive any benefit of any technical defect,