Punjab and Haryana HC Quashes 'Proclaimed Person' Order for Accused Held in Custody: Section 528 BNSS - 2024-12-19

Punjab and Haryana HC Overturns Order Declaring Detained Accused a 'Proclaimed Person'

In a recent ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has underscored the necessity of judicial diligence before declaring an accused a "proclaimed person," emphasizing that such coercive measures must not be applied blindly when the defendant’s custody status is known or discoverable.

A Cascade of Administrative Oversights

The case involved a petitioner, MXXXX KXXX, who was facing trial under the NDPS Act (FIR No.170, 2019) at Police Station Sadar Nabha. The dispute arose when the trial court declared the petitioner a "proclaimed person" on September 24, 2024, citing his failure to appear in court.

However, the reality of the petitioner’s situation presented a significant administrative gap. While the trial court was issuing bailable warrants, the petitioner was, in fact, incarcerated in connection with a separate FIR. The record revealed that the trial court’s attempts to secure his presence occurred during a period of pandemic-related uncertainty, during which reports regarding his location failed to reach the presiding magistrate in time. Consequently, despite the petitioner’s period of custody—from which he was released on October 27, 2021—he was erroneously flagged as an absconder.

Arguments from the Bar

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the law, specifically noting that the court did not satisfy itself that the petitioner was intentionally absconding or evading legal process. The petitioner maintained that his non-appearance was a result of his detention and subsequent administrative oversight, rather than an attempt to flee justice.

Conversely, the State expressed caution, arguing that the trial court had acted on the information provided by the police reports received at the time.

Judicial Reasoning: The Duty of the Court

Presiding over the matter, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Kirti Singh noted that the primary purpose of coercive judicial mechanisms is to ensure the accused's presence to receive orders. Justice Singh observed that if an accused demonstrates a "sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court," it is unjustifiable to maintain an order that results in, or threatens, their deprivation of liberty.

The Court held that the trial court’s issuance of warrants was "inadvertent," as the information regarding the petitioner's custody had not been correctly integrated into the judicial record at the relevant time.

Key Observations

• "The objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ensure that the accused remains present before the Court to receive the orders and punishments as are passed qua the accused."
• "If the accused shows his sincere intention and desire to appear before the Court, then it would not be unjustified to protect him from being arrested."
• "This Court finds that no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner in custody when the petitioner is ready to face trial."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the order dated September 24, 2024. As a condition for this relief, the petitioner was ordered to pay a cost of ₹10,000 to the Poor Patient Welfare Fund at PGIMER, Chandigarh.

The order directs the petitioner to appear before the trial court within three weeks to file an application with proof of payment. Upon compliance, the trial court is mandated to restore his existing bail bonds. This decision serves as a reminder to trial courts to verify the custody status of defendants before invoking the draconian "proclaimed person" status, ensuring that administrative gaps do not lead to unnecessary incarceration.