IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-31702-2025 in/&

CRM-M-42036-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 18.09.2025 Zaid Khan ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Saurabh Sheoran, Advocate for Mr. Rajat Sheokand, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vishal Singh, AAG Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J.

CRM-31702-2025

1. Application for placing on record the true translated copy of the service report carried out for the purpose of proclamation is allowed as prayed, subject to all just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

CRM-M-42036-2025

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed person in Sessions Case No.NDPS/21/2022 titled as “State of Haryana vs. Pritam etc.” bearing CNR No.HRJN010017122022 arising out of FIR No.264 dated 10.11.2021 registered under Sections 21(C), 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Garhi, District Jind.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person is patently illegal and unsustainable as the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 82(2) of Cr.P.C. has not been adhered to. Learned counsel has further iterated that the proclamation was neither duly published in the manner contemplated under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C. nor did the process server publicly read out the proclamation in a conspicuous place where the petitioner ordinarily resided. It has been argued that the inability of the petitioner to join the proceedings was not deliberate. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law and is, therefore, liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel asserts that the impugned order has been passed without properly scrutinizing or verifying the authenticity of the report submitted by the process server. Consequently, the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

3. Referring to reply by way of an affidavit of Kamaldeep Rana, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narwana, District Jind, on behalf of State of Haryana, learned State counsel has raised submission in tandem with this reply and has opposed the petition in hand. While refuting the case of the petitioner, detailed arguments concerning the merits of the case were made and it is argued that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature and that the Police conducted a fair and proper investigation. According to learned State counsel, the petitioner, after being granted anticipatory bail by this Court, joined the investigation and suffered his disclosure statement by confessing his guilt in the commission of crime. After the completion of the investigation, supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. against the petitioner was prepared and was presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Moreover, it has been stated that the learned Court below followed the procedure as laid-down under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case. Furthermore, learned State counsel has contended that though the petitioner was granted the concession of anticipatory bail, yet after the filing of the supplementary challan, he deliberately chose not to appear before the Court below. Consequently, the Court, after adopting due process declared him a proclaimed person. Lastly, learned State counsel has submitted that the conduct of the petitioner clearly demonstrates his willful defiance of the judicial process and abuse of the concession of bail. Thus, dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully perused the record of the case.

5. The law is w