CRM-M/48294/2026 of KULDEEP KUMAR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 27 August 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-48294-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 27.08.2026

Kuldeep Kumar

……Petitioner

Versus State of Punjab

..….Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Mann, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (Oral).

The present petition instituted under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assails the order dated 11.06.2026 (Annexure P.8) passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person.

2. The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are that FIR No. 187 dated 19.10.2023 was registered against the petitioner under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar. In said FIR, the petitioner was granted bail and thereafter, he continued regularly appearing before the Court. 2.1

On 10.06.2025, due to non appearance of the petitioner, notice was issued to him for 01.09.2025. However,

01.09.2025 was observed as `No Work Day’ by the Bar and, thus, fresh notice was issued to the petitioner for 06.10.2025. On 06.10.2025 and 15.11.2025 as well, fresh notices were issued to the petitioner as the previous notices were received back unserved. However, on 17.12.2025, the trial Court issued proclamation against the petitioner under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and ultimately, vide order dated 11.06.2026, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order vide which the petitioner was declared a proclaimed person is not sustainable, for, at no point of time, was the petitioner served and even the order issuing proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., was not passed in accordance with law. 3.1

Learned counsel submits that before passing the impugned order, no statement of the serving Constable was recorded by the trial Court. Still further, it is submitted that only notices were issued to the petitioner in order to procure his presence and at no point of time, any bailable or non-bailable warrants, were issued. It is further submitted that the serving constable had recorded the statement of father of the petitioner that the petitioner had been out of his control and as such, service of proclamation could not be said to be validly effected.

3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to surrender before the trial Court, but apprehends that since he has been declared a proclaimed person, the moment he surrenders, he would be taken into custody.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab, present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel the petitioner.

7. A perusal of the interlocutory orders passed by the trial Court, would show that on 10.06.2025 after the non- bailable warrants issued against accused Kamalpreet Singh and Jaskomal Preet Singh, were received back unexecuted, fresh non-bailable warrants were issued against them for 01.09.2025, whereas notice was issued to the petitioner, as he absented himself from the proceedings without any intimation or permission. Similar was the position on the subsequent dates i.e. 01.09.2025; 06.10.2025 and 05.11.2025.

8. On 17.12.2025, the trial Court passed the following order:- “Non-bailable warrants issued to accused Kamalpreet Singh received back unexecuted and notice issued to accused Kuldeep Kumar received back unserved. In these circumstances, this court has a reason to believe that accused have either absconded or concealing themselves to avoid execution of warrants. Let, proclamation under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C be issued for 19.02.2026 against the said accused Kuldeep Kumar and Kamalpreet Singh in writing, requiring them to appear before this Court within 30 days from the date of publishing such proclamation.”

9. Subsequently, as the said proclamation was not received back, a fresh proclamation was issued for 10.04.2026, vide order dated 19.02.2026.

10. On 10.04.2026, the Duty Magistrate, passed the following order:- “File put up before me being Duty Magistrate as learned Presiding Officer is on leave. Proclamation issued against accused Kuldeep Kumar and Kamalpreet Singh have been received back duly effected. For awaiting appearance of said accused, case stands adjourned to 22.05.2026. File be returned immediately to the concerned Court.”

11. On 22.05.2026, the trial Court, adjourned the matter to 11.06.2026, awaiting the presence of the accused, including the petitioner.

12. Ultimately, vide order dated 11.06.2026, the trial Court, declared the petitioner and other co-accused, proclaimed persons. The following order was passed:- “Today the case was fixed for awaiting appearance of accused Kuldeep Kumar and Kamalpreet Singh. None has appeared on behalf of accused. Perusal of the case file reveals that proclamation issued against accused received back duly effected. Statutory period of 30 days for awaiting the presence of accused have been expired. However, accused have not come present today in the Court. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, accused Kuldeep Kumar and Kamalpreet Singh are hereby declared as proclaimed persons. Necessary intimation be sent in this regard to the concerned quarter. Now to come up on 25.08.2026 for consideration on charge.”

13. Before proceeding to examine the legality of the impugned order, it would be apposite to refer to the statutory provisions and the law on the subject.

14. Section 82 Cr.P.C lays down as under:- “82. Proclamation for person absconding.

If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.

The proclamation shall be published as follows:- i (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides; (b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;

(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the court-house;

(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.

A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day.

Where a proclamation published under sub- section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459, or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.

The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under sub- section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-section (1).”

15. In the case of Sonu Vs. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319, a Coordinate Bench, while examining Section 82 Cr.P.C, summarised the essential requirements for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and declaring him a proclaimed person/offender; “9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and declaring him as proclaimed person/offender may be summarized 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 v. 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., 1973. (See Rohit Kumar v. 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 v. Emperor: AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi v. 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 v. State of Mysore 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. State of Haryna: 2020 (2) RCR (Criminal) 339).

(v) Where the period between issuance and publication of the proclamation and the specified date of hearing is less than thirty days, the accused cannot be declared a proclaimed person/offender and the proclamation has to be issued and published again. (See Dilbagh Singh v. State of Punjab (P&H): 2015 (8) RCR (Criminal) 166 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another: 2013 (4) RCR (Criminal) 550).

(vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973. For publication the proclamation has to be first publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which the accused ordinarily resides; then the same has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village and thereafter a copy of the proclamation has to be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house. The three sub-clauses (a)- (c) in section 82 (2(i) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 are conjunctive and not disjunctive, which means that there would be no valid publication of the proclamation unless all the three modes of publication are proved. (See Pawan Kumar Gupta v. The State of W.B.: 1973 CriLJ 1368). Where the Court so orders a copy of the proclamation has to be additionally published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which the accused ordinarily resides. Advisably, proclamation has to be issued with four copies so that one each of the three copies of the proclamation may be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which the accused ordinarily resides, to some conspicuous place of such town or village and to some conspicuous part of the Courthouse and report regarding publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation. Additional copy will be required where the proclamation is also required to be published in the newspaper.

(vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the Court as to the date and mode of publication of the proclamation. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965).

(viii) The Court issuing the proclamation has to make a statement in writing in its order that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day in a manner specified in section 82(2)(i) of the Cr.P.C, 1973. Such statement in writing by the Court is declared to be conclusive evidence that the requirements of Section 82 have been complied with and that the proclamation was published on such day. (See Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965).

(xi) The conditions specified in section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 for the publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory. Any noncompliance therewith cannot be cured as an irregularity and renders the Proclamation and proceedings subsequent thereto a nullity. (See Devendra Singh Negi alias Debu v. State of U.P. and another: 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh v. The State: 1955 CriLJ 318.”

16. Clearly, while summarising the requirements, the Coordinate Bench referred to almost the entire law on the subject. Still further, there can be no gainsaying the fact that the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are required to be complied with scrupulously.

17. It, therefore, emerges that prior to the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C, the Court concerned would be required to record its satisfaction that the accused, against whom such a proclamation was sought to be issued was absconding or was concealing himself/herself with an intention to evade arrest. This satisfaction is required to be recorded by a Court initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C on account of the grave civil and criminal ramifications that the provision has qua the rights of an accused.

18. Reverting to the facts of the case in hand, if the order initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is tested on the touchstone of the principles summarized by the Coordinate Bench, this Court finds the same to be unsustainable. No satisfaction was recorded by the trial Court that it had reason(s) to believe that the accused had absconded or concealed himself/herself so that the warrants could not be executed. Instead, the Court only noticed in the order dated 11.06.2026 that the statutory period of 30 days had expired since the service of the proclamation and the petitioner had not come present in the Court.

19. Still further, this Court finds that in order to procure the presence of the accused, the trial Court had issued non- bailable warrants against the co-accused, but no bailable or non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner and only notices were issued to him. Not only this, the trial Court kept on adjourning the matter to await the presence of the petitioner beyond a period of 30 days.

20. In view of the above, the order dated 11.06.2026 (Annexure P.8) is found to be unsustainable and is set aside subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs, to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Jalandhar.

21. If the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court within a period of 30 days from today and moves an application for bail, the same be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. However, in case, the petitioner does not appear, which may be an eventuality as he may be interested in only getting the order declaring him a proclaimed person set aside, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The Court is impelled to pass this order because now the petitioner has knowledge of the proceedings and has given an undertaking to surrender before the trial Court. No one should be permitted to misuse the process of law by assailing an order on technical grounds and then taking undue advantage of the said order having been set aside, which will tantamount to frustrating the proceedings before the trial Court. A Court is expected to balance the equities and in order to achieve that, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the instant order.

The petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

(VIKRAM AGGARWAL) 27.08.2026

JUDGE ds

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable

: Yes/No