IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ankit ….Petitioner versus State of U.T., Chandigarh ….Respondent Date of Decision: February 09, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 09, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Narender Kumar Vashist, Additional Public Prosecutor U.T., Chandigarh assisted by ASI Anoop Singh Virk.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, in case arising out of FIR No.367 dated 18.09.2015, registered under Sections 356 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), at Police Station Sector

36, Chandigarh, as well as all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended 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 argued that due to some urgent land dispute matter, the petitioner had to urgently travel to his native place as his personal presence was required there. Learned counsel has iterated that bail/ surety bonds of the petitioner were cancelled and forfeited to the State. Learned counsel has urged that non-appearance of the petitioner was neither willful nor intentional, but due to circumstances beyond his control.

2.1. Learned counsel has argued that as per the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned JMIC, Chandigarh, non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner remained unexecuted, and therefore, the proclamation warrants were issued against the petitioner awaiting report of the serving constable, for 13.06.2025, and requiring the petitioner to cause appearance on 08.08.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that vide order dated 13.06.2025, it was recorded that the serving constable had visited the given address, but the petitioner was not found there, he had pasted one copy of proclamation at the given address, one copy was pasted on the notice board of the District Courts, Chandigarh, and thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 08.08.2025. Learned counsel has further iterated that, vide impugned order dated 08.08.2025, the petitioner has been wrongly declared as proclaimed person being, in gross violation of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. On the basis of these submissions, learned counsel has prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside being illegal and unjustified and, hence, liable to be set-aside.

3. Reply by way of an affidavit dated 12.09.2025 has already been filed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – U.T., Chandigarh. Raising submissions in tandem with the said reply, learned counsel has opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments were advanced on merits, contending that the petitioner was arrested on 18.09.2015 and thereafter, he was released on bail, on 22.09.2015. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender, in this case, on three occasions. He has iterated that first time, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender on 16.10.2017 and was arrested on 18.04.2018, and was released on bail on 21.05.2018. Thereafter, second time, he was declared as proclaimed offender on 16.07.2022 and was arrested on 16.08.2022, and was released on bail on 23.08.2022. Learned counsel has further argued that now, third time, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person, vide order dated 08.08.2025. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has deliberately avoided the process of law and did not cause appearance and the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from any relief. Moreover, it has bee