Failure to provide a mandatory notice period of at least 30 days between the publication of a proclamation and the specified appearance date under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure renders an order declaring an accused a proclaimed offender illegal and void.

160

*****

---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , quashing the order dated 1.7.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal; and subsequent orders arising therefrom, whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender in FIR No.16 dated 23.1.2021 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station Guhla, District Kaithal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has submitted that earlier the petitioner was arrested in this case on 27.1.2021 and was granted the concession of regular bail by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 2.6.2023. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the Court below till 12.11.2024. The petitioner could not cause appearance on 12.11.2024 resulting cancellation of his bail. Subsequently, proclamation proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and proclamation was issued against the petitioner on 28.4.2025 for 20.5.2025. After recording statement of executing official on 20.5.2025, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 1.7.2025, which is impugned in the present case. Learned counsel has urged that the statutory period of 30 days had not elapsed from the date of publication of proclamation till the date fixed for appearance, however, vide impugned order dated 1.7.2025, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender on the basis of the same proclamation proceedings. Learned counsel has argued that the said proclamation was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C., thus, the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is in gross violation of law and principles of natural justice as there was no deliberate evasion or non-appearance on the part of the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel has also relied upon the judgement of Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana and another, CRM M No.41656 of 2023, decided on 23.8.2023. On the basis of these submissions, learned counsel has prayed that the impugned order being illegal and unjustified, is liable to be set-aside. Moreover, submissions are made regarding causing appearance in terms of order of this Court dated 12.03.2026.

3. Learned State counsel has filed reply by way of affidavit of Ramesh Gulia, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Guhla, District Kaithal, in Court today. The same be kept on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said status report, learned State counsel has opposed the petition in hand by arguing that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, the petitioner has misused the concession of bail earlier extended to him by not appearing before the trial Court & no plausible explanation has been brought forth as to why the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on the aforesaid date. However, he has admitted the fact that vide order dated 12.3.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner caused appearance before the Court below and was released on bail as well.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record.

5. This Court finds that the course adopted by the Court below is in clear contravention of, and antithetical to, the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court below has committed a manifest illegality by issui