IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26244-2026 Date of decision: 08.05.2026 SHARANJIT SINGH @ BUGGI ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Sumit Dua, Advocate for the petitioner.

…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-7), whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar has declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR No.182 dated 03.09.2025 u/s 21 of the NDPS Act (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), was registered at P.S. Basti Bawa Khel, District Jalandhar, against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner applied for bail before the learned Sessions Court, however, his bail application was dismissed. He submits that in between the police party continued to conduct raid at his house where they got the knowledge that the petitioner was not residing there and accordingly police approached the learned Trial Court for issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioner and to initiate further proceedings against him. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender by the learned trial court vide order dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-7). He further submits that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that he has been declared as proclaimed offender and when he moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Hon’ble High Court only then he came to know about this fact through the Status report filed by the State.

3. He further argues that since petitioner was never served with any notice/warrant, hence, the impugned order has been passed without complying with the requirements of section 82 Cr.P.C. (section 84 BNSS). He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing. Hence, he prays for quashing of the said order.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and supports the impugned order, contending that the petitioner deliberately avoided appearance, leaving the trial Court with no option but to issue proclamation to secure his presence.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The object behind issuance of non-bailable warrants or proclamation is only to secure the presence of the accused. In the present case, the petitioner has voluntarily approached this Court and undertaken to appear before the trial Court regularly.

8. The determination of whether the default of an accused is intentional or unintentional must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Where it is established that the absence, or prolonged absence, of the accused is deliberate and intended to evade the process of law, appropriate costs may be imposed after considering the nature of the offence and the capacity of the accused to pay any cost.

9. In the present case, apart from a bald assertion that requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. were not complied with before declaring petitioner a proclaimed person, no plausible ground has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to support his contention. However, still this court is inclined in taking a lenient view keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-7), declaring the petitioner proclaimed offender, is set aside and the petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within four weeks from today, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to be deposited by the petitioner in Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER Chandigarh. Upon doing so, he shall be released on bail subject to furnishing requisite