Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bikramjit Singh Alias Bikka vs State Of Punjab And Another on 21 April, 2026
CRM-M--72305-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
152 CRM-M-72305-2025
Bikramjit Singh alias Bikka
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab and another
....Respondent
Date of decision: 21.04.2026
Date of Uploading : 22.04.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab
Punjab.
Ms. Sushma Suman, Legal Aid Counsel for respondent No.2.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS,
2023, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure
P-2)) passed by the JMIC, Nakodar whereby the petitioner has been declared as
proclaimed offender, in case FIR No.109
9 dated 19.05.2020, registered for
commission of offences punishable under Sections 304
304-A,
A, 279, 427 of IPC, at
Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings
arising therefrom against the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel
ounsel 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 as the
absence of the petitioner before the Court below was neither intentional nor
deliberate. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been
regularly appearing before the Court below after filing of the challan and was
AJAY KUMAR
2026.04.22 13:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–72305-2025 2
on bail. However, in the last week of July, 2025, the petitioner has suffered
red a
serious injury on his left thigh which incapacitated him from attending the
Court proceedings on 28.07.2025. According to learned counsel, on account of
the said medical condition and trauma, the petitioner has neither appear before
the Court nor inform his counsel. It has been further contended that the Court
below,, without properly appreciating the attendant circumstances, cancelled the
bail bonds and issued non-bailable
non bailable warrants
warrants, followed by initiation of
proclamation proceedings. It has been further
rther contended that the mandatory
provisions governing proclamation have not been complied with in their true
letter spirit,
spirit the petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Offender in a mechanical
manner. It has further been contended that immediately upon gaining
ning
knowledge of the said order, the petitioner approached the competent Court by
filing an anticipatory bail application which came to be dismissed solely on
account of his declaration as a Proclaimed Offender thereby reflecting his bona
fide intention to join the proceedings. It has also been submitted that 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-
non
appearance on the part of the petitioner. On the basis of these submissions,
submission
learned counsel has prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside
aside
being illegal and unjustified and hence liable to be set
set-aside.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel
counsel, while referring to
o reply
by way of an affidavit dated 17.01.2026,, has opposed the present petition.
Learned State counsel has iterated that during the course of trial, the petitioner
did not appear before the Court below and vide order dated 29.07.2025 passed
by the Court below, the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled and issued
AJAY KUMAR NBW against the petitioner for 07.08.2025. Furthermore, the petitioner
2026.04.22 13:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–72305-2025 3
remained absent from the proceedings despite issuance of non
non-bailable
bailable
warrants and thereafter proclamation was issued for 19.09.2025. It has been
further contended that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the
petitioner to appear before the Court below but he failed to do so leaving the
Court with no option but to initiate proclamation proceedings. It has further
contended that once the petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Offender, the
impugned order does not warrant interference.
3.1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed
the grant of petition in hand by arguing that allegations against the petitioner
are serious in nature. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioner,
intentionally, did not cause appearance before the Court below. Learned
counsel has further argued that the proclamation was issued and duly effected
upon the petitioner
petitioner clearly in terms of provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C.
and, thus, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary, and
unsustainable in the eyes of law.
law. On the strength of these submissions,
dismissal of the petition in hand is prayed
prayed for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully
perused the record of the case.
5. The law is well settled that no person can be declared a
proclaimed offender/person unless the procedure prescribed under Section 82
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is strictly and meticulously adhered
to.. It is trite that the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature,
nature
and any non-compliance
non compliance thereof vitiates the entire proceedings. It is not in
dispute that the petitioner
petitioner had initially joined the proceedings and was on bail.
The record further reflects that his absence commenced from 28.07.2025
AJAY KUMAR onwards. The explanation furnished by the petitioner is that he had suffered an
2026.04.22 13:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–72305-2025 4
injury, which is sought to be substantiated by a medical certificate placed on
record. This Court finds that the said explanation cannot be brushed aside
lightly particularly when there is nothing on record to suggest that the
petitioner had been habitually absenting himself from the proceedings pri
prior
or to
the said date.
6. This Court finds the course adopted by the Court below is
antithesis to the provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. The Court below has committed illegality by issuing the said
proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,
without complying the mandatory requirements of law. The learned Court
below, while declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person, failed to satisfy
itself regarding due execution of proclamation and proceeded in a
mechanical manner. Such an order being violative of mandatory provisions
of law, cannot be sustained. Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 reads as under:
“82.
82. Proclamation for person absconding. – (1) 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
roclamation 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.
(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: –
(i)(a) it shall be publicly read in some conspi
conspicuous
cuous 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-
court
house;
AJAY KUMAR
2026.04.22 13:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–72305-2025 5
(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.
(3) 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
sub-section
section (2), shall be conclusive
evidence that the requirements of this Sect
Section
ion have been complied with,
and that the proclamation was published on such day.
[(4) Where a proclamation published under sub
sub-section
section (1) is in respect of
a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364,
367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395,
95, 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, pronounc
pronouncee him a
proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.
(5) The provisions of sub-sections
sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration
made by the Court under sub-section
section (4) as they apply to the proclamation
published under sub-section (1).]””
7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with
invocation of the provision of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, against an accused in the case of ”Sonu
Sonu v. State of Haryana,
2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319′,
319′ held as under:
“9. The essential requirements of section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 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 aga
against
inst 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
AJAY KUMAR
2026.04.22 13:52
v. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561).
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–72305-2025 6
(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 iiss concealing himself so that the warrant
of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable
diligence. (See BishundayalMahton 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 hearin
hearing
g 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 vi
village
llage 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 proc
proclamation
lamation has to be affixed to some
conspicuous part of the Court-house.
house. The three sub
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
nless 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 whic
which
h 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
AJAY KUMAR
2026.04.22 13:52 publication may be made on the fourth copy of the proclamation.
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–72305-2025 7
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
irements 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
non-compliance
compliance 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)
318).”
8. It is pertinent to mention that the power to declare an accused as
a Proclaimed Offender is a serious one carrying grave civil consequences.
However, such
such power is required to be exercised with due caution and only
when the Court is satisfied that the accused has deliberately and willfully
evaded the process of law. In the present case, the sequence of events indicates
that the absence of the petitioner was triggered by a medical condition and
there is no material
material to establish intentional evasion from the process of law.
law
This
his Court also finds substance in the contention of the petitioner that
immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the impugned order, he took steps
by approaching the Sessions Court, which reflects his bona fides. The object of
proclamation proceedings is to secure the presence of the accused and not to
penalize him for circumstances beyond his control. A perusal of the
impugned order dated 22.09.2025 reveals that no such satisfaction was
AJAY KUMAR
2026.04.22 13:52
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M–72305-2025 8
ecorded by the Court below, nor was there any material to justify the
recorded
inference that the petitioner had absconded or was deliberately avoiding
arrest.
9. Hence, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
criminal proceedings pending against the pet
petitioner, particularly when the
petitioner has already joined the investigation and duly cooperated.
d. It is,
therefore, an appropriate case for the exercise of powers under Section 528
of BNSS/Section
BNSS/Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and to bring to an end the criminal
proceedings
dings initiated in the light of the FIR ibid against the petitioner.
10. In view of the above findings, in the entirety of facts and
circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed and the
order dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P-2)) passed by the JMIC, Nakodar whereby
the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender, in case FIR No.109
dated 19.05.2020, registered for commission of offences punishable under
Sections 304-A,
304 A, 279, 427 of IPC, at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar
Jalandha
and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioner are
quashed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
April 21, 2026
Ajay
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
AJAY KUMAR
2026.04.22 13:52 Whether reportable: Yes/No
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
