IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 22.09.2025 Ashwani Kumar ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Nagar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gaurav Gurcharan Singh Rai, Sr. DAG Punjab.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 06.03.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class-15 whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed person in case FIR No.7 dated 13.01.2022 registered under Sections 61/1/14 of the Excise Act, 1914 at Police Station Maqsudan, Jalandhar Rural, District Jalandhar.

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 of Cr.P.C. has not been adhered to. It has been argued that the inability of the petitioner to join the proceedings was not deliberate as earlier the petitioner was residing at the address given in the FIR and after registration of the FIR, he has changed his rented accommodation. 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 the short reply filed by way of an affidavit of Rajesh Kumar, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters-cum- Sub Division, Kartarpur, Jalandhar (Rural), on behalf of the State of Punjab, learned State counsel has reiterated the submissions made therein and opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments were advanced on merits, contending that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature and that the investigation was conducted in a fair and proper manner. It is submitted that since the offence committed by the petitioner was bailable in nature, he was released on bail by the Investigating Officer upon furnishing the requisite surety bonds. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, a thorough investigation was undertaken, during which the allegations levelled against the petitioner stood duly substantiated with evidence. On completion of the investigation, a final report was prepared and presented before the competent Court of jurisdiction. It has further been pointed out that the learned Court below scrupulously adhered to the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and no infirmity or irregularity is discernible from the record. Despite being granted the concession of bail, the petitioner willfully chose not to appear before the trial Court. Consequently, after adopting due process, the Court was constrained to declare him a proclaimed person. Learned State counsel has, therefore, contended that the conduct of the petitioner clearly establishes his deliberate defiance of the judicial process and misuse of the concession of bail. Accordingly, dismissal of the instant petition has been 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 well settled that no person can be declared a proclaimed offender/person unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is meticulously adhered to. It is trite law that the provisions of Section 82 are mandatory in nature, and any non-compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings. In the present case, the offence attributed to the petitioner being bailable in nature, he was duly released on bail by the Investigatin