Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Proclaimed Offender Declaration for Non-Compliance with Mandatory Preconditions; Holds Abscondence Must Be Judicially Recorded

Case Name: Inderjeet Singh v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 27 January 2026

Citation: CRM-M-3742-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neerja K. Kalson

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a person cannot be declared a proclaimed offender unless the trial court records a clear satisfaction, supported by material, that the accused has absconded or is deliberately concealing himself to evade the execution of warrants. The Court held that issuance of proclamation without exhausting mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 82 CrPC (now Section 84 of the BNSS, 2023) vitiates the entire proceedings.

Summary: The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 12.04.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court), Ludhiana, whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in Sessions Case No. SC/141/2017 arising out of FIR No.141 dated 30.11.2016 registered under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana.

The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated in the FIR arising out of a consensual relationship with the prosecutrix, who had voluntarily left her parental home and later married the petitioner at a Gurudwara Sahib with the consent of her father. It was submitted that the petitioner had been granted regular bail and had approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. Interim protection granted in the quashing petition was later vacated on 01.07.2019 due to non-appearance, as the petitioner had gone abroad.

The petitioner argued that he was unaware of the vacation of interim relief and that proclamation proceedings were initiated in undue haste. It was contended that notices and warrants were never duly served, inquiry reports recorded that his whereabouts were unknown, and despite such defective service, the trial court proceeded to issue proclamation without recording satisfaction regarding abscondence or granting the mandatory statutory period of 30 days for appearance.

Upon examination of the record, the High Court found that the trial court had failed to record any reasons to believe that the petitioner had absconded or was concealing himself to evade arrest, which is a sine qua non for invocation of proclamation proceedings. The Court further held that there was no material on record to show issuance or non-execution of warrants or compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 82 CrPC.

Relying on earlier decisions including Major Singh @ Major v. State of Punjab and Sonu v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated that non-compliance with the mandatory conditions governing proclamation proceedings renders such orders incurably illegal. The Court also noted that the petitioner had voluntarily approached the Court and undertook to appear before the trial court.

Decision: The petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 12.04.2021 declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed offender and all consequential proceedings were set aside. The petitioner was directed to appear before the trial court within two weeks and apply for bail, which was directed to be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.