Rupinder Kumar @ Soni vs State of Punjab

Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, in case arising out of FIR No. 84 dated 30.06.2020 registered under Section 304 of IPC at Police Station Mehal Kalan, District Barnala, whereby the petitioner has been declared proclaimed person.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned case. He was granted concession of regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide order dated 24.08.2020 and had been continuously appearing before the learned trial Court. However, on 23.09.2025, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court as his counsel was occupied in another Court and could not move an application seeking exemption from personal appearance. Consequently, the trial Court cancelled his bail bonds and initiated proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. The absence of the petitioner before the Court was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reason as mentioned above. It is further argued that he was never served with any notice/warrants issued by the trial Court at his ordinary place of residence. He had been declared a proclaimed person without following the proper procedure prescribed under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. He is ready to join the Court proceedings. Hence, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Notice of motion.

Learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who has advance notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter, has resisted the petition by submitting that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the petitioner has rightly been declared a proclaimed person as he was running away from the process of Court. It is, thus, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

This Court has heard the rival submissions.

On giving due deliberations to the contentions as raised by learned counsel for the parties and on an overall perusal of the orders passed by the trial Court from the date of initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as against the petitioner till the date of declaring him a proclaimed person, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 suffers from material illegalities and is liable to be quashed with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

After going through the material placed on record as well as the copies of zimni orders passed by the learned trial Court, it is revealed that on 23.09.2025, since the petitioner was absented from the proceedings of learned trial Court, the learned trial Court had ordered for issuance of proclamation against him for 06.10.2025. A bare perusal of this order shows that the learned trial Court before ordering for publication of proclamation has not recorded its proper satisfaction that that the petitioner had absconded or was concealing himself so that the warrant of arrest, previously issued, cannot be executed, despite reasonable diligence, which was in violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) of Cr.P.C. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Rohit Kumar Vs. State of Delhi : 2008 Crl. J. 2561.

Further, a perusal of the order dated 23.09.2025 reveals that the proclamation was issued for 06.10.2025, which means that the petitioner was not granted mandatory period of 30 days to cause his appearance before the learned trial Court. Hence, the same was in clear violation of the provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., as per which, a specified time of not less than 30 days is required to be given to the accused from the date of publishing such proclamation which is mandatory in nature. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. Although, the case was adjourned to 18.10.2025; then to 30.10.2025 and then to 13.11.2025 for recording the statement of the serving police officials, however, in order to complete the mandatory period of 30 days, the learned trial Court was required to issue a fresh proclamation for the date(s) so fixed, once the period between issuance of publication of proclamation and the specified period of hearing was less than 30 days. Reference in this context can be made to Dilbagh Singh Vs. State of Punjab (P&H) : 2015 (8) R.C.R. (criminal) 166.

Accordingly, in view of the discussion as made above and also in view of the ratio of law as laid down in above cited authorities, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala in case titled as State vs. Hardeep Singh, arising out of FIR No. 84 dated 30.06.2020 registered under Section 304 of IPC at Police Station Mehal Kalan, District Barnala, whereby the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed person, is quashed with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is ready to join the Court proceedings which would obviously help in speedy conclusion of trial, he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of 20 days from today and on doing so, the learned trial Court shall release him on bail, subject to his furnishing fresh personal/surety bonds to its satisfaction.

Till the appearance of the petitioner before the learned trial Court, his arrest shall remain stayed.

It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to appear before the learned trial Court within the stipulated time, this petition shall be deemed to be dismissed.

However, this relief shall be subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-, to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services Authority, Barnala.