IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Arshdeep Singh Gill @ Arshdeep Singh ….Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ….Respondents Date of reserve: February 12, 2026 Date of Pronouncement/ Decision: February 16, 2026 Date of Uploading: February 16, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. S.P.S. Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.

None for respondent No.2.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-9) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Samrala, in case bearing No.CHI/169/2018 titled as “State vs Daljit Singh etc.), whereby, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, in case arising out of FIR No.170 dated 02.10.2018, registered under Sections 295, 160, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), at Police Station Machhiwara, District Khanna.

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 the petitioner was released on bail by the Trial Court. Learned counsel has further argued that during pendency of the trial, the parties mutually agreed to resolve the dispute in question and arrived at a compromise and qua which, a petition was also moved before this Court, but ultimately, the same was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel has iterated that a notice was issued by the learned trial Court, but said notice was received by the father of the petitioner, due to which, he could not appear before the trial Court on 12.04.2024. Learned counsel has argued that the trial Court, vide order dated 12.04.2024 (Annexure P-4) cancelled and forfeited the bail/ surety bonds of the petitioner and also issued warrants of arrest, for 14.05.2024. Learned counsel has further iterated that warrants of arrest issued by the trial Court remained unexecuted and therefore, vide order dated 07.10.2024 (Annexure P-5), proclamation was issued against the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that the statement of serving constable dated 11.11.2024 (Annexure P-8) reveals that the petitioner was not found on the address, but his mother was present therefore, he affixed one copy of proclamation on the gate of house of the petitioner, one copy was affixed on the wall of the bus stand, Machhiwara Sahib and one copy was affixed on notice board of the Court.

2.1. Learned counsel has iterated that based on the report of the serving official, learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 09.12.2024 (Annexure P-9), declared the petitioner as proclaimed person, which is erroneous and is not sustainable given non-compliance of proper procedure as envisaged under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. Learned counsel has further argued that the serving constable has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. as the proclamation was not publicly read in some conspicuous place. Learned counsel has further iterated that the learned trial court failed to follow the procedure under Section 105 of the Cr. P.C. since it was within its knowledge that the petitioner had gone abroad at the time of issuance of process under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. as well as at the time of declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person.

2.2. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner is not absconding and had never intentionally sought to evade the process of law and the Court. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner was under impression that since compromise was effected between the parties, therefore, the FIR has been quashed. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner is ready and willing to join proceedings before the trial Court on