127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.03.2025 DEEPAK KUMAR ALIAS BILLA ...PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking setting aside/quashing of impugned orders dated 02.08.2024 (Annexure P-2), 06.011.2024 (Annexure P-9), whereby, bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and his bail/surety bonds were forfeited and his non-bailable warrants were issued and order dated 02.01.2025 (Annexure P-15), vide which, he was declared as proclaimed offender passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon, in case stemming from FIR No.109 dated 02.11.2019 registered under Sections 457/380/427 of IPC at Police Station Sudhary, District Ludhiana Rural (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was on regular bail in the FIR (supra) and was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. However on 02.08.2024, he could not appear before the trial Court as he met with an accident and suffered internal injury on his spine and was bed- ridden and the trial Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner and his bail/surety bonds were forfeited to the state and issued arrest warrants against him. Thereafter, vide orders dated 16.08.2024, 30.08.2024, 12.09.2024, 26.09.2024, 09.10.2024, 23.10.2024, non-bailable warrants of the petitioner were issued and on 02.01.2025, he was declared as proclaimed offender. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that proclamation was issued against the petitioner without following the drill of Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 of BNSS, 2023) and non-compliance of the mandatory provisions vitiates the entire proceedings, which suffers from incurable illegality as he was never served and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and supports the orders 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, arrest warrants and proclamation were issued to secure his presence.

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

7. 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 not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

8. A perusal of the impugned orders 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 suffering from incurable illegality. In the judgment passed by this Court in Sonu Vs. State of Haryana 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319, it has been held that the conditions specified in Section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any non-compliance