Navjeet Singh @ Navjit Singh @ Love vs State Of Punjab

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 528 BNSS is for the quashing of the order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person in case FIR No.46 dated 07.05.2017 under Sections 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Bhogpur, Jalandhar.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-6) has been passed without proper compliance of Section 82 Cr.P.C. The statement of ASI Satpal Singh was recorded by the Trial Court on 29.10.2022 to the effect that he had effected the proclamation on the house of the petitioner on 26.10.2022 directing the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court on 29.10.2022. Therefore, only 03 days’ time has been given to the petitioner to appear before the concerned Court instead of 30 days as provided under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-6 is liable to be quashed.

The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the FIR in question came to be registered on 07.05.2017 when the petitioner was apprehended with 32 grams of contraband. He was granted the concession of regular bail on 06.10.2017, the challan was presented on 11.10.2017 and the charges were framed against the petitioner on 08.05.2018. On 23.01.2019, the petitioner failed to appear before the Trial Court for the first time. Therefore, the bail granted to him was cancelled and his non-bailable warrants were issued. The petitioner absented himself on 12 consecutive dates and proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated on 14.10.2021. Thereafter, the proclamation proceedings against the petitioner were initiated under Section 82 Cr.P.C. on 14.12.2021 and 10.03.2022. Though, the statement of ASI Satpal Singh was recorded by the Trial Court on 29.10.2022 to the effect that proclamation had been effected on 26.10.2022, the petitioner was, indeed, directed to appear before the Trial court on 29.10.2022. Thereafter, on the said date, the case was adjourned to 30.11.2022 on which date the impugned order (Annexure P-6) came to be passed. Therefore, there has been sufficient compliance of Section 82 Cr.P.C.. Even otherwise, once the petitioner was arrested, granted bail and then absconded, it does not lie in his mouth to contend that the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-6) has been passed without due compliance of the procedure envisaged under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Admittedly, the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 07.05.2017 and granted the concession of regular bail on 06.10.2017. He appeared before the concerned Court up till 23.01.2019. On his non-appearance thereafter, he was declared a proclaimed person on 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-6).

Firstly, he was very well aware of the fact that the Trial was ongoing in FIR No.46 dated 07.05.2017 under Sections 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Bhogpur, Jalandhar in which he was an accused. Furthermore, there is sufficient compliance of Section 82 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the Court had adjourned the case for a period of 30 days awaiting the presence of the petitioner. It was only when the petitioner did not appear, did the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-6) come to be passed.

Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I find no fault with the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-6) and therefore, the present petition stands dismissed.

The pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.