IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.02.2026 Bhupinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J (ORAL)

CRM-7176-2026 Prayer in the instant application is for placing on record zimni orders passed during trial as Annexure P.4.

Allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.

CRM-7177-2026 Prayer in the instant application is for grant of exemption from filing certified copy of zimni orders as Annexure P.4.

Allowed, as prayed for.

Main case

1. Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.31 dated 02.04.2020 registered against him for commission of offence punishable under Sections 188,269,186,506 IPC registered at P.S Dera Baba Nanak, District Batala, has assailed order dated 17.01.2023 passed by learned JMIC, Batala vide which he has been declared as proclaimed person.

2. Twofold submissions have been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly that learned trial Magistrate erred in law, while declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person, inasmuch as on bare perusal of statement of Executing Constable, appended at page 10 of the application bearing CRM-7176- 2026, it is clear that all requirements of Sub Section (2) of Section 82 Cr.P.C (84 of BNSS) were not complied with, inasmuch as the Executing Constable did not

2026.02.23o 2p3:e00nly read the publication at some conspicuous place of the town or village,

where the accused was residing. Thus, procedural requirements of afore- mentioned Section were not complied with, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. The second leg of submission raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that some of other persons, who were arrayed as accused in the aforesaid FIR and who also faced the trial, have since been convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each vide order dated 13.10.2022 passed by the learned JMIC, Batala.

Petitioner is willing to surrender before the trial Court and join the proceedings.

3. 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 absconded or is concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence. (See Bishundayal Mahton and others Vs. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi Vs.State of U.P. : 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783).

(iv) The requisite date and place for appearance must be specified in the proclamation requiring such person to appear on such date at the specified place. Such date must not be less than 30 clear days from the date of issuance and publication of the proclamation. (See Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of

2026.02.23 23:00

Mysore : 1969 Cri LJ 826 and Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339).

(v) Where the period between issuance and publ