IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18172-2026 Decided on : 06.04.2026 SANJIV KUMAR @ SOHAN @ SONJIT . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF PUNJAB . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. LM Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. Instant petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.), has been filed for quashing of the order dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioner has been declared as ‘proclaimed person’, on account of his non-appearance in the following FIR:-

FIR Date Section(s) Police District No. Station

183 15.09.2018 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act,1914 Sadar Amritsar Amritsar

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was earlier granted the concession of bail and had been regularly appearing before learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing, since the presentation of the challan, i.e., 31.07.2019.

However, during the pendency of the trial, COVID-19 pandemic spread across the country, due to which learned trial Court exempted the petitioner from personal appearance. In the intervening period, in the year

2021, petitioner developed symptoms of COVID-19 and was quarantined by his family members as a precautionary measure. Owing to these circumstances, he remained unaware of the resumption of proceedings before the trial Court and was also unable to contact his counsel.

3. It is further submitted that learned trial Court initially issued bailable warrants, followed by non-bailable warrants against the petitioner, and ultimately, vide order dated 11.12.2023, initiated proclamation proceedings (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, petitioner was declared a proclaimed person, vide order dated 05.02.2024 (Annexure P-4). Counsel further submits that petitioner came to know about the status of the case recently, when the police raided his residence to arrest him. Upon inquiry, he discovered that he had already been declared a proclaimed person.

4. It is also submitted that during COVID-19 period, the case was repeatedly adjourned from time to time, and thereafter, petitioner never received any notice or summons, nor the same were ever duly served upon him. Petitioner was residing at the same address as mentioned in the trial record and, due to lack of communication with his counsel, remained unaware of the proceedings and his declaration as a proclaimed person.

5. Learned counsel contends that non-appearance of the petitioner was neither intentional nor wilful, but occurred due to circumstances beyond his control, particularly in the absence of proper service. It is asserted that petitioner had no intention to evade the trial; however, due to the unavoidable circumstances mentioned above, he could not appear before learned trial Court.

Thus, learned counsel submits that in case, one opportunity is granted for releasing the petitioner on bail, by protecting him from arrest, petitioner undertakes that he would not absent himself in future, without there being prior permission from the Court, and fully cooperate for early disposal of the trial.

6. Notice of motion.

7. Learned State counsel puts an appearance, and opposes the request of the petitioner by submitting that petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, because, he knowingly evade the proceedings before the trial Court. Learned State counsel further submits that looking at his behaviour, there is no surety that in future, petitioner would not be absent for the purpose of delaying the trial.

8. In number of cases, wherein, accused stopped appearing in criminal cases, the Courts are compelled to declare accused as ‘Proclaimed Person/Proclaimed Offender’. After examining the facts, this Court has formulated a uniform method to ensure the presence of accused before the concerned Court, to enable it to proceed further instead of delaying the proceedings by awaiting the presence of accused.

Intentional or uninte