Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Arrest, Non-Bailable Warrants and Proclamation for Breach of Section 82 CrPC; Holds Absconding Must Be Judicially Established
Case Name: Vikas Bibra v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: 16 January 2026
Citation: CRM-M-58483-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that coercive process in the form of arrest warrants, non-bailable warrants and proclamation under Section 82 CrPC cannot be sustained unless the Court records a clear judicial satisfaction that the accused is absconding or deliberately concealing himself. The Court held that absence of compliance with Sections 41 and 41-A CrPC and mechanical issuance of proclamation vitiates the entire proceedings.
Summary: The petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of orders dated 30.06.2017, 20.07.2017, 21.08.2017 and 07.11.2017 passed by the trial Court, whereby arrest warrants, non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, culminating in his declaration as a proclaimed person in FIR No.135 dated 22.11.2016 registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Mataur, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
The petitioner contended that the trial Court failed to record satisfaction as required under Section 82(1) CrPC that he was absconding or concealing himself. It was argued that no notice of appearance under Section 41-A CrPC was ever served, warrants were returned unexecuted without reasons, and there was no material to suggest deliberate evasion by the petitioner. It was further contended that the proclamation was issued mechanically, without affording the mandatory minimum notice period or adhering to the statutory safeguards.
The State opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner failed to join investigation and that the trial Court had acted within its jurisdiction.
The High Court examined the record and held that proclamation proceedings are an extreme coercive measure and must strictly conform to the statutory requirements. The Court observed that issuance of proclamation is impermissible unless prior steps under Sections 41 and 41-A CrPC are complied with and the Court records satisfaction regarding intentional abscondence. The Court further held that a mere failure of warrants to be executed does not automatically justify proclamation.
Relying on settled precedent, the Court held that the impugned orders were passed in a routine and mechanical manner, without application of judicial mind, and therefore could not be sustained.
Decision: The petition was allowed. The impugned orders issuing arrest warrants, non-bailable warrants and proclamation, including the order dated 07.11.2017 declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed person, were quashed. Liberty was reserved with the prosecution to proceed in accordance with law after following due procedure.