150 (2^nd case)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rajinder Singh @ Jinder ….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. Rakesh 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, seeking quashing/ setting aside of the impugned order dated 12.11.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, in a criminal case No.24/1 of 25.07.2003 titled as “State Vs. Bharpur Singh”. 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 in the present case. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was admitted to bail by the trial Court, vide order dated 25.07.2003 (Annexure P-2) and had been appearing regularly before the trial Court. Learned counsel has iterated that vide order dated 22.11.2007, the bail of the petitioner was cancelled and thereafter, vide order dated 12.11.2009, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was unemployed and upon getting an opportunity, he immigrated to Greece and settled there. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was not aware about the proceedings pending against him. Learned counsel has further argued that vide judgment dated 04.09.2010 (Annexure P-5), co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Bharpur Singh and Ajit Singh were acquitted by the trial Court of the charge(s) framed against them as the prosecution had failed to prove its case. Learned counsel has further iterated that the serving constable, who was required to made the publication of the proclamation, did not follow the procedure envisaged under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C., in its true essence, as he had not read the publication in some conspicuous place. Learned counsel has urged that non- appearance of the petitioner was neither willful nor intentional and he came to know about this fact only from his other co-accused. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner did not try to evade the proceedings pending against him. 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 person (wrongly written as proclaimed offender in the impugned order) is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

3. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of an affidavit dated 12.12.2025, which is already on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said 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 the petitioner was aware about the proceedings pending against him, but he intentionally absented himself and went to Greece without seeking prior permission from the trial Court. Consequently, the petitioner has been rightly declared as proclaimed person, vide impugned order. 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. Learned State counsel has, therefore, contended that the conduct of the petitioner clearly establishes his deliberate d