Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mandeep Singh @ Mandip Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 May, 2026
1
CRM-
CRM-M-10495-
10495-2025
129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-
CRM-M-10495-
10495-2025
Mandeep @ Mandip Singh
.Petitioner
....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
Date of Decision: May 20,
20, 2026
Date of Uploading: May 20,
20, 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:-
Present: Mr. Namish Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL, J. (Oral)
Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023
seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 04.11.2023 passed by the learned
JMIC, Garhshankar,
Garhshankar, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed
person, in case FIR No.55 dated 05.04.2020,, registered under Section 188 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860,
1860, at Police Station Division Garshankar, District
Hoshiarpur,, and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned
order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person,, is wholly
illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has
submitted that earlier the petitioner was granted concession of bail by the trial
Court, vide order dated 02.04.2021 (Annexure P
P-2). Learned counsel has
submitted that thereafter, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.20 16:06
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
2
CRM-
CRM-M-10495-
10495-2025
Learned counsel has submitted that non-bailable warrants issued against the
petitioner remained unexecuted. Learned counsel has submitted that since of non-
bailable warrants were not executed, therefore, subsequent proclamation
proceedings as well as declaration of the petitioner as proclaimed person, is not in
accordance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. Learned counsel has
submitted that the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person
has been passed mechanically without proper compliance of mandatory provisions
as enshrined under Section 82 Cr. P.C. Learned counsel has stated that no such
satisfaction was recorded by the Court below to the effect that the petitioner had
absconded or was deliberately avoiding his arrest. On the basis of these
submissions, learned counsel has prayed that the impugned order being illegal and
unjustified, is liable to be set-aside.
3. Learned State counsel, while raising submissions in tandem with the
short reply by way of an affidavit dated 04.04.2025 (which is already on record)
has opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner,
detailed arguments were advanced on merits, contending that the offence alleged
against the petitioner is serious in nature. Furthermore, it has been submitted that
the petitioner failed to cause appearance before the Court below, and consequently,
learned Court below issued proclamation against the petitioner. Learned State
counsel has argued that ultimately, vide impugned order dated 04.11.2023, the
petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person after following the procedure as
laid-down under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no
discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case. Accordingly,
dismissal of the instant petition has been prayed for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and carefully
perused the record of the case.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.20 16:06
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
3
CRM-
CRM-M-10495-
10495-2025
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, and any non-compliance
thereof vitiates the entire proceedings. Furthermore, Section 82(1) of the Cr. P.C.
clearly provides that before issuing a proclamation requiring a person to appear,
the Court must have reason to believe that such person has absconded or is
concealing himself so that the warrant cannot be executed. Further, the
proclamation must specify a date not less than 30 days from the date of publication
for the accused to appear before the Court.
Perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 21.09.2023, while
issuing proclamation against the petitioner under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. for
04.11.2023, it was noted in the said order that non-bailable warrants of arrest
issued against the petitioner were received back unexecuted. Thereafter, vide order
dated 04.11.2023, the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person. The law is
well-settled that once the non-bailable warrants were unexecuted and there is no
satisfaction recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to absconding and
concealment, the issuance of proclamation, straightway in itself is bad in law.
Failure to adhere to the provisions of Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. before declaring
the petitioner as proclaimed person vitiates the subsequent order declaring the
accused as a proclaimed person.
6. 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 issuing and acting upon the proclamation without ensuring compliance with the
mandatory statutory requirements. The learned Court below, while declaring the
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.20 16:06
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
4
CRM-
CRM-M-10495-
10495-2025
petitioner as a proclaimed person, failed to record the requisite judicial satisfaction
regarding due execution of the proclamation and proceeded in a mechanical and
perfunctory manner, rendering the impugned order legally unsustainable. Such an
order being violative of mandatory provisions of law, cannot be sustained. Further,
Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 reads as under:
“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 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 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.
(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-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.
[(4) 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.
(5) 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).]”
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
319′, held as
in the case of ‘Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021(1) RCR (Criminal) 319′
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).
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.20 16:06
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
5
CRM-
CRM-M-10495-
10495-2025
(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
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 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 non-
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).”
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.20 16:06
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
6
CRM-
CRM-M-10495-
10495-2025
8. It is by now a settled principle of law that prior to issuing a
proclamation under Section 82 Cr. P.C., the Court is required to record its
satisfaction that the accused, against whom such proclamation is sought, is
absconding or is concealing himself/ herself with the intention to evade arrest. This
foundational and jurisdictional requirement is conspicuously absent in the present
case. A perusal of the impugned order dated 04.11.2023 reveals that no such
satisfaction has been recorded by the Court below, nor does the record disclose
any material which could justify an inference that the petitioner had absconded or
was deliberately avoiding her appearance before the Court.
9. The provisions of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
having serious civil and criminal ramifications qua the rights of an accused,
particularly affecting his liberty and participation in trial proceedings, cannot be
invoked in a casual or cavalier manner. The mandatory requirement of recording
satisfaction that the accused has absconded or is concealing himself/ herself so that
the warrant of arrest cannot be executed, as embodied under Section 82 Cr.P.C.,
must be scrupulously complied with on the basis of cogent and relevant material
available on record. Any non-adherence to this statutory mandate while declaring
an accused as a proclaimed offender/person vitiates the proclamation proceedings
in their entirety.
10. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is of the considered opinion
that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the criminal proceedings to
continue against the petitioner, which are founded upon an illegal and procedurally
flawed proclamation. It is, therefore, a fit and appropriate case for the exercise of
inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS / Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., so as
to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.20 16:06
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
7
CRM-
CRM-M-10495-
10495-2025
11. In view of the above findings, and considering the entirety of the
facts and circumstances of the present case, the present petition is allowed.
allowed
Consequently, the impugned order dated 04.11.2023 passed by the learned JMIC,
Hoshiarpur, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person, as
well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed qua
the petitioner.
There is no gainsaying that observations made in the instant order
are limited to the issue in lis, namely, the petitioner being declared as Proclaimed
person, and shall not be construed as observations on the merits of the case.
11.1. The petitioner is directed to apply for bail, whether anticipatory or
regular as deem appropriate by him, within a period of 03 weeks from today,
failing which the present petition would be deemed to be dismissed without any
further reference to the Bench.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUMEET GOEL)
GOEL)
JUDGE
May 20,
20, 2026
mahavir
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.05.20 16:06
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
