150 (1st case)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Harwinder Singh ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab ….Respondent Date of decision: January 12, 2026 Date of Uploading: January 12, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Rajnish K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional AG Punjab.

**********

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023,inter alia, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 24.10.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, in a case arising out of FIR No.30 dated 23.03.2023, under Sections 406 &420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 13 of the Punjab Travel Professional (Regulation) Act, 2014, registered at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib, District Fatehgarh Sahib, as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was already granted concession of regular bail by the trial Court, vide order dated 25.08.2023 and had been appearing regularly before the trial Court. Learned counsel has argued that sister/ co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Kulwinder Kaur was diagnosed with cancer and as she was residing with the petitioner, the petitioner became busy in taking care/treatment of her sister. The medical record of the sister of the petitioner is appended as Annexure P-1 with the petition in hand. Learned counsel has iterated that the trial Court below was informed about the health condition of the sister of the petitioner. Learned counsel has further iterated that vide order dated 05.08.2025, non-bailable warrants of the petitioner were issued, and thereafter, vide order dated 28.08.2025, the proclamation was issued against the petitioner wherein no specific date and time was mentioned for making appearance before the trial Court. 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 serving official. Consequently, the order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed personis unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

3. Learned State counsel has filed short reply by way of an affidavit dated 15.12.2025, which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said short reply, learned State counsel opposed the present petition.While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments were advanced on merits, contending that, though, the petitioner was granted concession of regular bail by the trial Court, but he absented himself on 04.06.2025 before the trial Court. Thereafter, notice was issued to the petitioner, which was duly served, but despite that, the petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court and therefore, his bail order was cancelled. Learned State counsel has further argued that on 28.08.2025, the proclamation was issued against the petitioner directing him to appear before the trial Court on 14.10.2025. Learned State counsel has iterated that meanwhile, upon an application moved by the petitioner, the trial Court while taking lenient view on account of demise of sister of the petitioner, allowed the said application of the petitioner for grant of bail, on certain conditions; but despite that, the petitioner failed to furnish bail/ surety bonds. Learned State counsel has further iterated that after