Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Singh Alias Monu vs State Of Haryana on 18 November, 2025
CRM-M-64999-2025 -1-
130
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-64999-2025
Date of decision 18.11.2025
GURCHARAN SINGH ALIAS MONU
...... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
SURYA PARTAP SINGH. J.
1. By virtue of present petition, the petitioner is seeking the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court by virtue of Section 528 of BNSS. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in a case pertaining to FIR No.102 dated 19.03.2021, Police Station City Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. With regard to above-mentioned trial, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 384, 387, 388, 389, 506, 392, 397 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender on 04.04.2024. While claiming that proper procedure for declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender was not adopted, the quashing of above-mentioned order has been sought.
2. Notice of motion.
1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-11-2025 01:27:27 ::: CRM-M-64999-2025 -2-
3. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. A.G, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State, and waives service.
4. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that on 19.03.2021, the FIR No.102 was lodged in Police Station City Thanesar with regard to commission of offence mentioned-above. In the above-mentioned case the petitioner was arrayed as an accused and therefore, he was taken into custody but later on he failed to appear before the learned trial Court and therefore his bail was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the state on 21.10.2021. Thereafter, after making several efforts to procure the presence of petitioner in the Court his warrants of arrest were issued on different occasions but when the above-said warrants could not be executed by issuing proclamation, he was declared a proclaimed offender.
5. Heard.
6. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that without adopting a proper procedure enshrined under 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsa Sanhita' hereinafter being referred as BNSS, the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender. With regard to above-mentioned contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically referred to two components:-
i) that from the date of pasting of proclamation 30 days clear time was not afforded to the petitioner for appearance in the Court;
ii) that the proclamation issued against the petitioner was not read by the Executing Constable at a public place.
2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-11-2025 01:27:28 ::: CRM-M-64999-2025 -3-
7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner for want of compliance of above-mentioned mandatory provisions the impugned order is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.
8. The learned State counsel has controverted the above-mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel, the petitioner who himself is guilty of jumping the bail and violating the conditions of bail bonds is trying to take advantage of technicalities of law. According to learned State counsel being defaulter the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from the Court.
9. The record has been perused carefully.
10. As far as the proclamation issued against the petitioner is concerned at the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the procedure for proclamation has been prescribed under Section 84 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 82 Cr.PC.). The above-mentioned statutory provisions prescribes that :-
(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.
11. If the above-mentioned statutory provision is analyzed it transpires that amongst the essential components of the procedure for declaring a person to be proclaimed offender, one is the reading of the proclamation by the 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-11-2025 01:27:28 ::: CRM-M-64999-2025 -4- Executing Constable in public, and second one is the minimum 30 days time to be afforded to the accused to appear before the Court. In the present case the statement of Executing Constable recorded by the learned trial Court dated 02.02.2024 is very much relevant. The above-mentioned statement reads as under:-
"Stated that I had received proclamation issued by this Hon'ble Court in the present case against accused Gurcharan Singh, son of Shri Angrej Singh, resident of village Gudha, Tehsil Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, on 14.01.2024. I had visited the address mentioned in the proclamation on 20.01.2024, where accused was not found present. Parents of accused Gurcharan Singh told me that their son had gone Abroad for the last 8-9 months. Consequently, I had pasted a copy of the proclamation on the outer wall of the house of accused. I had also pasted a copy of the proclamation on the notice board of this Hon'ble Court."
12. The learned trial Court in view of above-mentioned statement on 02.02.2024 passed the following order:-
"Proclamation issued against accused Gurcharan Singh received duly executed. Executing Official SI Ram Kumar appeared and stated that he has executed the proclamation issued against accused Gurcharan Singh on 20.01.2024. His statement to this effect recorded which is appended with case file.
Case stands adjourned to 04.04.2024 for presence of accused Gurcharan Singh.
SHO concerned was also directed to submit the list of properties of accused Gurcharan Singh, but needful has not been done. A request in this regard has been received from SHO concerned to the effect that due to strike of Patwari/Kanungo, the report regarding properties of accused could not be obtained. In view of this, SHO concerned is again directed to submit list of 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-11-2025 01:27:28 ::: CRM-M-64999-2025 -5- properties of accused Gurcharan Singh on date fixed for initiating proceedings u/s 83 Cr.P.C".
13. A bare perusal of the above-mentioned order shows that the proclamation which was affixed on 20.1.2024 was for 02.02.2024, and from the date of affixation of proclamation till the date of appearance 30 days clear time was not afforded to the accused. With regard to above-mentioned situations, the principles of law have been laid down by this High Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. in CRM-M-1866-2017, is relevant, wherein it has been laid down that "The above quoted provision is clear that through the proclamation made prior to declaration of a person as a proclaimed offender, he should be given not less than thirty days from the date of its proclamation to appear at a specified place and a specified time.
14. In the above-said case thirty days were not given to the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court as the proclamation was made on 13.05.2011 requiring him to appear before the Trial Court on 14.05.2011. Thus, it was held that the proclamation and the subsequent order dated 03.09.2011 (Annexure P-
2) declaring the petitioner to be a proclaimed offender, were not in conformity with the mandate of Section 82 (1) of the Code".
15. Similarly in the case of Amandeep Singh vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-26161-2024, it has been observed by this Court that "In view of provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., it is clear that the publication was effected on 9.2.2013 and the accused was directed to appear in the Court as per that publication on 6.3.2013 which period was less than 30 days. Therefore, it cannot be held that by passing the impugned order on 13.3.2013, the publication has been effected as per the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. There was no order 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-11-2025 01:27:28 ::: CRM-M-64999-2025 -6- in the publication for the accused giving specified time and place to appear on 13.3.2013. Therefore, this order is not as per law and the same is set aside."
16. If the proceedings conducted in the present case are analyzed in the light of above-mentioned principles of law, it transpires that the in the present case also, not only the mandatory statutory provisions have been ignored, but also the judicial precedents.
17. In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that the statement of executing Constable nowhere reflects that the proclamation was read over at a public place in the area where the petitioner ordinarily resides, as prescribed under Section 82(2)(i)(a) Cr.P.C. Thus the order declaring the above said person to be a proclaimed person/proclaimed offender is defective and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Similar view has been taken by this High Court in the cases of Pal Singh Santa Singh v. State AIR 1955 Punjab 18 and Tajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (CRM-M21736-2024, decided on 07.05.2024).
18. As sequel to above-mentioned observations, once there is violation of mandatory statutory provisions as well as the judicial precedents, it is hereby held that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be set aside. Hence, by accepting the present petition, the impugned order is hereby set aside. However, it is made clear that there is no finding with regard to illegality of the order, whereby the bail of the petitioner was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the state. As such the learned trial Court will be at liberty to exercise its discretion with regard to consequences of cancellation of bail of the petitioner, i.e. the learned trial Court may take the petitioner into custody on account of cancellation of bail or may impose penalty under Section 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 21-11-2025 01:27:28 ::: CRM-M-64999-2025 -7- 491 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Section 446 Cr.P.C.).
19. The present petition stands disposed of, accordingly.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
18.11.2025
vipin
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 21-11-2025 01:27:28 :::