Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Kumar @ Ravi vs State Of Punjab on 24 December, 2025
CRM-M-73345-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
159
CRM-M-73345-2025
Date of decision: 24.12.2025
Ravi Kumar @ Ravi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY
Present : Mr. Sumit Dua, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)
1. Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No. 85 dated 11.03.2023 registered against him for commission of offences punishable under Sections 21, 29 of NDPS Act, at Police Station Rama Mandi, Jalandhar, has assailed orders dated 08.09.2025 and 16.10.2025, vide which on account of his absence from the Court, his bail was cancelled. Surety bonds/personal bonds were also cancelled and forfeited to State and his presence was sought to be procured through non-bailable warrants and further proclamation proceedings were initiated, respectively.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was falsely implicated in the aforesaid criminal case. After he was granted concession of bail, he had been regularly appearing before the Court. However on 08.09.2025, he could not appear before the Court on account of some misunderstanding operating in his mind with regard to the date of hearing. Petitioner had also changed his counsel and hence the confusion arose with regard to the next date of hearing. It is further the submission of learned counsel that against the spirit of Section 82 Cr.P.C., learned Judge, Special Court, Jalandhar, initiated proclamation proceedings only on the first date of absence of petitioner. No repeated efforts were made to procure his 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 02:09:09 ::: CRM-M-73345-2025 2 (P) presence. The procedure so adopted is not 'in sync' with the spirit of Section 82 Cr.P.C. With this backdrop, it has been prayed that the orders dated 08.09.2025 and 16.10.2025 be set aside.
Further, learned counsel contends that petitioner is willing to surrender before the Court concerned and move an application for grant of bail. His only limited prayer is that the learned trial Court be directed to decide the bail application expeditiously.
3. Heard. Documents on record perused.
4. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer to a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-23777-2020 titled Sonu V/s. State of Haryana, decided on 06.10.2020, wherein the essential requirements of section 82 Cr.P.C. for issuance and publication of proclamation against an absconder and declaring him as proclaimed person/offender were discussed 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 Vs. 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.. (See Rohit Kumar Vs. 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 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 02:09:11 ::: CRM-M-73345-2025 3 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 Vs. Emperor : AIR 1943 Patna 366 and Devender Singh Negi Vs.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 Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 Cri LJ 826 and Shokat Ali Vs. 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 Vs. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166 and Ashok Kumar Vs. 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.. 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. 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 Vs. The State 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 02:09:11 ::: CRM-M-73345-2025 4 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 Court-house 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 Vs. 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.. 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 Vs. State : 1958 CriLJ 965).
(xi) The conditions specified in Section 82(2) of the Cr.P.C. 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 Vs. State of U.P. and another : 1994 CriLJ 1783 and Pal Singh Vs. The State : 1955 CriLJ 318).
It is, thus, clear that before initiating the proclamation proceedings, there should be a specific report before the learned Presiding 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 02:09:11 ::: CRM-M-73345-2025 5 Officer that the person against whom warrants have been issued, had absconded or is deliberately concealing himself, as also that his presence cannot be procured, except through publication. In the case in hand, petitioner-accused Ravi Kumar @ Ravi absented himself from appearing in the Court on 08.09.2025, when as a result thereof, his bail was cancelled. Surety bonds/personal bonds were also cancelled and NBWs were issued for 16.10.2025. On the said day i.e. 16.10.2025, warrants of petitioner were received back unexecuted. There was nothing on record to suggest that despite service of warrants, petitioner had intentionally avoided to appear in the Court. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar presumed so and initiated proclamation proceedings.
Further, this Court in CRM-M-36490-2022, titled as Major Singh vs. State of Punjab, decided on 15.09.2022, while considering the bonafide of the petitioner and finding the reason for his absence justified, set aside the order issuing non-bailable warrants. In CRM-M-38277-2022, Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, dated 26.08.2022 and CRM-M-39000- 2022, titled as Raghav vs. State of Punjab, decided on 09.09.2022, the orders whereby non-bailable warrants were issued on account of his non- appearance, were set aside on the ground that the same was on account of having noted down the wrong date and failure of his counsel in not intimating the same.
Moreover, the primary purpose of issuing a non-bailable warrant is to secure the appearance of the accused, especially when they fail to appear after being served a summons or if they are likely to abscond. Courts issue NBWs as a last resort, after first attempting to secure attendance through summons and bailable warrants.
5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 02:09:11 ::: CRM-M-73345-2025 6
5. In the interest of justice, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and judgments referred hereinabove, the impugned orders dated 08.09.2025 and 16.10.2025, are set aside. Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the court concerned on the next date of hearing. In case, he surrenders before the court, he be released on fresh bail/surety bonds, subject to the conditions so deem appropriate by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Petitioner is also directed to furnish an undertaking by way of an affidavit that he will appear on each and every date of hearing before the trial Court, unless specifically exempted by the Court. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. The trial Court may impose any other condition that it may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
7. Before parting with this order, it is made abundantly clear that in case the petitioner does not adhere to the aforesaid conditions, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court.
(AARADHNA SAWHNEY)
JUDGE
24.12.2025
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 30-12-2025 02:09:11 :::