IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7087-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 09.02.2026 Arshdeep Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Harpal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of order dated 08.01.2026 passed by Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti, District Tarn Taran, vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person in case FIR No.198 dated 03.07.2020, registered at Police Station City Patti, District Tarn Taran.

2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was granted regular bail vide order dated 13.07.2020, whereafter challan was presented and he continued to appear but for 27.10.2025 on account of changing the address from Village Kulla to Patti, District Tarn Taran also noted down the wrong date, leading to his bail being cancelled and bail bonds/surety bonds forfeited to the State, vide order of even date and he was declared as proclaimed person vide order dated 08.01.2026 without complying with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C in letter and spirit. He is ready and willing to join the proceedings and prays that one last opportunity may be granted to him to surrender before the trial Court.

3. Notice of motion.

4. At the asking of the Court, Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and submits that the order passed against the petitioner is legal and valid on account of the fact that he had absented from the proceedings before the trial Court without any just cause.

5. No order prejudicial to the rights of the private respondent is being proposed to be passed by this Court, thus there is no requirement of impleading him as party.

6. Heard.

7. In the case of Gurbir Singh Mundi (supra), it was held that provisions of Section 82(2) Cr.PC. are to be mandatorily complied with cumulatively and not alternatively. The Court had quashed the order declaring the petitioner therein as proclaimed person on the ground that declaration was not read publicly in some conspicuous place of town or village, in which the accused ordinarily resides.

8. This Court in the judgment passed in Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab, 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406, has held that the Court is first required to record its satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non-recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable illegality. In the judgment passed by this Court in Sonu Vs. State of Haryana 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 319, it has been held that the conditions specified in Section 82 (2) Cr.P.C. for the publication of a proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any non-compliance therewith cannot be cured as an ‘irregularity’ and renders the proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity.

9. The very purpose of initiation of proclamation proceedings, is to compel and secure the presence of the accused to face trial and establish the rule of law, as also to ensure finalization of the proceedings.

10. Considering the fact that the absence of the petitioner was not wilful or deliberate and his readiness and willingness to surrender and join the proceedings, in case one opportunity is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice shall be caused to any of the parties, rather his joining the proceedings would help in expediting the trial. This Court in light of the judgment referred to above being applicable to the instant case, finds that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the present petition is allowed.

11. In view of the afore-mentioned judgments and the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 08.01.2026, Annexure P-5, is set aside.

12. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 24.02.2026 and on so doing, he shall release him on bail subject to its satisfaction and deposit co