125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 20.02.2025 Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.A.G., Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-13) passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Fazilka, vide which the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender in case bearing FIR No.104 dated 20.04.2020 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, Section 188 of IPC and Section 51 (b) of Disaster Management Act, 2005, registered at Police Station City Fazilka, District Fazilka, Punjab (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was on bail and after presentation of challan, the case was adjourned for 21.12.2022 and charges were framed on the same day. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for prosecution evidence, whereas, on 21.12.2022, no prosecution witness was present. On 03.05.2023, non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner for 01.08.2023. On 07.06.2024, on account of receipt of report regarding non-bailable warrants as ‘unexecuted’, the trial Court initiated proclamation proceedings against the petitioner and on 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-13), the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-13), the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the non- bailable warrants issued to the petitioner were never served as the petitioner was present in Amritsar and, therefore, the finding of the trial Court that the petitioner is intentionally evading his arrest, is erroneous. Ultimately, vide impugned order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-13), the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender. It is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the mandate of Section 82 of Cr.P.C.

has not been followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court.

4. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.A.G., Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice for the respondent-State and supports the order passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no other option, proclamation was issued to secure his presence.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

8. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual-accused and interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and notsuffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

9. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has absconded or is concealing himself. This Court in the judgment passed in Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406; 2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 has held that the Court is first required to record its satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non- recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order sufferin