IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7543-2026 Date of decision: 09.02.2026 Ajay @ Shooter ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present : Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)

1. Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.160 dated 15.08.2019 registered u/s 323, 325, 341 r/w Section 34 IPC at Police Station Bhatuu Kalan, District Fatehabad, has prayed for setting aside the order dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned JMIC, Fatehabad vide which he (P) was declared a ‘Proclaimed Person’.

2. Two fold submissions have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, that after the concession of bail was granted to the petitioner, he continued to appear before the concerned Court regularly. However, one such occasion i.e. on 04.07.2025, due to circumstances beyond his control, he (P) could not appear. Consequently, his bail was cancelled, personal bonds, surety bonds were also cancelled and forfeited to state. His presence was sought to be procured through non-bailable warrants. On the next date of hearing, NBWs were received back unexecuted. Learned trial Court based on the said solitary report, arrived at a conclusion that accused is deliberately avoiding to appear before the Court concerned, thus initiated Proclamation Proceedings. It is further the submission of learned counsel that there were no consistent reports with the learned trial Court to arrive at such a conclusion.

The second leg of submission raised by learned counsel is that after the initiation of proclamation proceedings, period of 30 days had not lapsed for appearance of the accused. Learned Magistrate was conscious of this fact and adjourned the matter from 08.09.2025 to 04.10.2025. The said order dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P-7) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“Today the case was fixed for report of proclamation. In pursuance of proclamation issued against the accused Ajay @ Shooter, executing official ASI Rattan Singh has appeared and got recorded his statement regarding effecting of proclamation against above name accused on 03.09.2025. Since the period of one month from the date of effecting of proclamation has not yet been expired, now, to come upon 04.10.2025 for the presence of accused.”

Such an adjournment, as per learned counsel is not ‘sync’ with the procedural requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. Primarily based on the aforesaid submission, it has been prayed that the order dated 15.10.2025 be set aside.

4. Heard. Documents on record perused.

5. At the outset, it needs to be ascertained as to whether the procedural requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. were complied with by learned Magistrate before declaring petitioner ‘Proclaimed Person’.

In this context, before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-23777-2020 titled Sonu V/s. State of Haryana, decided on 06.10.2020, wherein the essential requirements of section 82 Cr.P.C. for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and declaring him as proclaimed person/offender were discussed as under:

(i) Prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court is sine qua non for issuance and publication of the proclamation and the Court has to first issue warrant of arrest against the person concerned. (See Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J.

2561).

(ii) There must be a report before the Court that the person against whom warrant was issued had absconded or had been concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest could not be executed against him. However, the Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard before issuing a Proclamation under Section 82 (1) of the Cr.P.C.. (See Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561).

(iii) The Court cannot issue the Proclamation as a matter of course because the Police is asking for it. The Court must be prima facie satisfied that the person has a