BIKRAMJIT SINGH ALIAS BIKKA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed under Sec. 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of the impugned order dtd. 22/9/2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the JMIC, Nakodar whereby the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender, in case FIR No.109 dtd. 19/5/2020, registered for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 304-A, 279, 427 of IPC, at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law as the absence of the petitioner before the Court below was neither intentional nor deliberate. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner has been regularly appearing before the Court below after filing of the challan and was on bail. However, in the last week of July, 2025, the petitioner has suffered a serious injury on his left thigh which incapacitated him from attending the Court proceedings on 28/7/2025. According to learned counsel, on account of the said medical condition and trauma, the petitioner has neither appear before the Court nor inform his counsel. It has been further contended that the Court below, without properly appreciating the attendant circumstances, cancelled the bail bonds and issued non-bailable warrants, followed by initiation of proclamation proceedings. It has been further contended that the mandatory provisions governing proclamation have not been complied with in their true letter spirit, the petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Offender in a mechanical manner. It has further been contended that immediately upon gaining knowledge of the said order, the petitioner approached the competent Court by filing an anticipatory bail application which came to be dismissed solely on account of his declaration as a Proclaimed Offender thereby reflecting his bona fide intention to join the proceedings. It has also been submitted that the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender is in gross violation of law and principles of natural justice as there was no deliberate evasion or non-appearance on the part of the petitioner. On the basis of these submissions, learned counsel has prayed that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside being illegal and unjustified and hence liable to be set-aside.

(3.) On the other hand, learned State counsel, while referring to reply by way of an affidavit dtd. 17/1/2026, has opposed the present petition. Learned State counsel has iterated that during the course of trial, the petitioner did not appear before the Court below and vide order dtd. 29/7/2025 passed by the Court below, the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled and issued NBW against the petitioner for 7/8/2025. Furthermore, the petitioner remained absent from the proceedings despite issuance of non-bailable warrants and thereafter proclamation was issued for 19/9/2025. It has been further contended that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the petitioner to appear before the Court below but he failed to do so leaving the Court with no option but to initiate proclamation proceedings. It has further contended that once the petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Offender, the impugned order does not warrant interference.