Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manga Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 March, 2026
CRM-M-12611--2026 (O&M) -1-
161
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
CRM
CRM-M-12611-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 10.03.2026
Manga Singh ....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MS.
MS JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present:Mr. M.S.Hundal,
M.S.Hundal, Advocate for the petitioner.
-.-
MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 482 Cr.P.C)
Cr.P.C),, for
quashing the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 vide which the petitioner has been
declared as a proclaimed person in FIR No.320, dated 27.08.2021 registered under
Section 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 42/52
42/52-A
A of Prisons Act at
Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
granted bail vide
vide order dated 04.07.2023 by the learned trial Court in the
aforementioned FIR. Thereafter the petitioner was regularly appearing before the
trial Court, however on 04.01.2025, the petitioner failed to appear due to
miscommunication with his counsel.
counsel Due to his non
non-appearance
appearance his bail order was
cancelled and bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited to the State.
Consquently, non-bailable
non bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. On
23.01.2025, proclamation was issued against the petitioner and thereaf
thereafter
ter on
14.02.2025, it was observed that proclamation is effected on 13.02.2025 and the
case was adjourned to 17.03.2025 for recording of statement of serving official.
TRIPTI SAINI
2026.03.13 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-12611–2026 (O&M) -2-
Ultimately on 17.03.2025, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed offender by
observing that mandatory period of 30 days has been elapsed from the date of
effecting of proclamation.
3. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the provisions
contained under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C, the petitioner could not have been declared
decla
as ‘proclaimed offender’, but could only be declared as ‘proclaimed person’
person’.. He
further submits that the petitioner was not duly served and was consequently
declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 17.03.2025.. It is contended that
the mandatory requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 of the BNSS)
were not complied with, as the Court is required to record its satisfaction that the
accused has absconded or is concealing himself and that the warrants could not be
executed. Such satisfaction
satisfaction must be based upon the report of execution and the
material placed on record.
4. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order is legally
unsustainable and are liable to be set aside.
5. He further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appea
appearr before the
trial Court on each and every date of hearing.
6. Notice of motion.
7. Mr. H.S.Wadhwa, DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent-State
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
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
9. In the present case, the main contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner involve interpretation of provisions of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C and same
is reproduced as below:-
TRIPTI SAINI
below:
2026.03.13 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-12611–2026 (O&M) -3-
[4. Where a proclamation published under Sub
Sub-Section
Section (1) is in
respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under section
302 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393,, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400,
302, 400
402 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and
402,
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
th effect.
5. The provisions of Sub-Sections
Sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a
declaration made by the Court under Sub
Sub-Section
Section (4) as they apply to
the proclamation published under Sub
Sub-Section(1)]”
10. Finally, it has been argued that the petitioner has been wrongly
declared to be a proclaimed offender in the present case. As per Section 82(4)
Cr.P.C where a proclamation published under Sub Section 1 is in respect of a
person/accused of an offence punishable
punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382,
382
392, 393, 394, 395,
395 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402
402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the IPC
and such person fails to appear at a specified place and time required by the
proclamation, the Court may after making such enquiry as it thinks fit pronounce
him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect. In the present
pres
case, the present petitioner was being prosecuted for the offences punishable under
Sections 22(c) and 29 of NDPS and said offences do not find mention in Section
82(4) Cr.P.C.
11. This Court finds sufficient force in the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner in this regard. It has been held by this Court in CRM–M-
34328-2011
2011 (O&M) titled as “Rahul Dutta Vs. State of Haryana” as follows:–
” Till the amendment by Act No.25 of 2005, proclamation was
being done in respect of a person against whom a warrant has been
issued and who has been either absconding or concealing himself toTRIPTI SAINI
evade the execution of warrants but by way of Act No.25 of 2005, in
2026.03.13 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-12611–2026 (O&M) -4-consonance with Section 40(2)(ii), sub
sub-section
section (4) ismade a part of
Section 82 Cr.P.C.
The
he offences mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. are of
recurring nature. All the persons, who are absconding or concealing
themselves to evade execution of warrants of arrest, could be
proclaimed persons but they could be declared a “proclaimed
offender” only
on under the provisions of the IPC which are mentioned
in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C. There is stark distinction between a
proclaimed person and a proclaimed offender and for that reason,
there is a difference of punishment provided under Section 174-A
A IPC
as it provides imprisonment which may extend upto three years or
with fine or with both regarding a person who has been proclaimed in
terms of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. and the imprisonment which may
extend upto seven years and also with fine in respect of a person who
is declared a “proclaimed offender” under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C.
I have also minutely examined those sections of IPC mentioned
in Section 40(2)(ii) Cr.P.C. and have found that Sections 435, 450 and
457 IPC are not mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C., whereas Section
364, 367, 400 and 459 IPC are additionally mentioned therein.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that Sections 83 to
86 Cr.P.C. deal with the proclaimed person and provide a complete
procedure with regard to the attachment ooff his property but it does not
deal with a person who has been declared to be a “proclaimed
offender
offender.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered
opinion that the terms “proclaimed person” and “proclaimed
offender” have different connotations. A person who is evading the
execution of warrants of arrest issued under the particular Sections of
the IPC which are mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C., can only be
declared to be a proclaimed offender and the persons under the other
provisions of the IPC and the laws, can be declared to be a
provisions
proclaimed person in terms of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C.”
TRIPTI SAINI
2026.03.13 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-12611–2026 (O&M) -5-
12. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by this Court in
the matter of Rahul Dutta (supra) the petitioner has been wrongly declared to be a
proclaimed offender in the present case.
13. Further, the
the requisite date and place for appearance must be specifiedin 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 an
publication of the proclamation.
proclamation A co-ordinate
ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM–M-
14209-2021
2021 titled “Anita Sharma v. State of Punjab “, date of decision26.03.2021,, has summarized the essential requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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
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
himself
him. However, the Court is not bound to take evidence in this regard
before issuing a Proclamation under Section 82(1)
(1) of the Cr.P.C.. (See
Rohit Kumar v. State of Delhi:2008Crl. J. 2561
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
evender Singh Negi v. State of
U.P.: 1994 Crl LJ (Allahabad HC) 1783
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.
TRIPTI SAINI
2026.03.13 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-12611–2026 (O&M) -6-
Such date must not be less than
than 30 clear days from the date of
issuance an publication of the proclamation. (See GurappaGugal and
others v. State of Mysore 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali v. State of
Haryna: 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339
339).
(v) Where the period between issuance and publicat
publication
ion 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&II): 2015 (8
(8) RCR (criminal) 166 and
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another : 2013 (4) RCR
(Criminal) 550)
550
(vi) The Proclamation has to be published in the manner laid down in
Section 82(2)
(2) of the Cr.P.C. For pub
publication,
lication, 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
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.
house. The three
subclauses (a)-(c)
(a) (c) in Section 82 (2)(i) of the Cr.P.C. 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).
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
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 Court-house
house and report
regarding publication may
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.
TRIPTI SAINI
2026.03.13 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-12611–2026 (O&M) -7-
(vii) Statement of the serving officer has to be recorded by the Court
as to the date and mode of publication
publication of the proclamation. (See
Birad Dan v. State: 1958 CriLJ 965
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..
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).
965
(xi) The conditions specified in Section 82(2)
(2) of the Cr.P.C. for the
publication of a Proclamation against an absconder are mandatory.
Any non-compliance
non compliance therewith cannot be cured as an ‘irregularity’
andd 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
318)”.
14. Perusal of the paper book reveals that the learned Judge Special
Court, Amritsar ordered issuance of proclamation under Section 82 CrPC on
23.01.2025 against the accused for 14.02.2025, which was admittedly effected on
13.02.2025. On 14.02.2025,, the case was adjourned to 17.03.2025 for recording
the statement of serving official. On 17.03.2025
17.03.2025, statement of serving
rving official was
got recorded and the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender.
15. This Court finds that the aforesaid procedure adopted by the learned
trial Court does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 82(1) CrPC. The
mere fact that the case was adjourned for awaiting completion of one month from
the date of issuance of the proclamation cannot be treated as due compliance with
the statutory mandate. Section 82(1) CrPC clearly requires that the proclamation
must specify a date and place for appearance of the accused, and such date must be
TRIPTI SAINI
2026.03.13 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-12611–2026 (O&M) -8-
not less than 30 clear days from the date of publication of the proclamation, which
is not so in the present case.
16. It is well settled that where the period between the date of publication
of the proclamation and the date fixed for appearance is less than 30 clear days, the
proclamation proceedings are vitiated and the accused cannot be declared a
proclaimed offender. In such circumstances, a fresh proclamation is required to be
issued and published in accordance with law. Reliance in this regard is rightly
placed upon Dilbagh Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2015 (8) RCR (Criminal) 166.
17. In the present case, the proclamation was admittedly effected on
13.02.2025.. Instead of issuing a fresh proclamation after ensuring compliance with
the mandatory requirement of fixing a date beyond 30 clear days from the date of
publication, the learned trial
trial Court merely adjourned the matter to 17.03.2025 for
awaiting the presence of the accused. Such adjournment cannot cure the inherent
defect in the proclamation proceedings.
18. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the essential
requirements of Section 82(1) CrPC have not been complied with in the present
case. Consequently, the proclamation order declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed
offender is legally unsustainable.
unsu
19. The object behind issuance of non
non-bailable
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.
20. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view
that the petitioner can be directed to appear before the trial Court
Court/Duty
/Duty Magistrate,
Magistrate
so that trial may resume. Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned
order dated 17.03.2025 are set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner as
TRIPTI SAINI
2026.03.13 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-12611–2026 (O&M) -9-
‘proclaimed person’, and he is directed to be released on bail, in the eventuality of
surrender by him before the trial
tr Court/Duty
/Duty Magistrate within a period of two
weeks from today subject to payment of Rs.5000/
Rs.5000/- as costs to be deposited by the
petitioner in Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh.
21. The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner will also submit an
undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial
in future and the proceedings will not be delayed because of his conduct.
22. It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial
Court/Duty
/Duty Magistrate within a stipulated period, this order shall be deemed to be
vacated.
23. With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of.
24. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
March 10, 2026 (MANDEEP PANNU)
tripti JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
TRIPTI SAINI
2026.03.13 11:19
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document