AKASH TALWAR @ AMRISH TALWAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), seeking setting aside of the impugned order dtd. 28/3/2023 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person, in case FIR No.257 dtd. 18/12/2019, registered under Ss. 61, 78 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and Sec. 473 of the IPC, 1860, at Police Station Dugri, District Ludhiana.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed person, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has argued that vide order dtd. 27/7/2021 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was granted concession of anticipatory bail, by this Court. Learned counsel has further allowed that since at the time of grant of aforesaid concession, there was COVID-19 pandemic prevailing, therefore, the petitioner could not appear before the Court below from 6/4/2021 to 5/1/2023, except 5/11/2022 and 30/11/2022. Learned counsel has argued that since there was COVID-19 pandemic, still notices, bailable and non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. Learned counsel has further argued that thereafter, proclamation proceedings were issued, vide notice dtd. 16/2/2023 requiring the petitioner to appear before the Court below on 20/2/2023. Learned counsel has submitted that statement of serving official was recorded on 28/3/2023, perusal of which reveals that the said proclamation was allegedly effected on 18/2/2023 asking him to appear on 20/2/2023, meaning thereby, only 02 days were given to the petitioner to appear before the Court below. Further, statement of the serving official reveals that the proclamation was not read at conspicuous place whereby the petitioner resides. Learned counsel has argued that there was total non-compliance of provisions of Sec. 82 of the Cr. P.C. as 30 days period, as prescribed, was not given to the petitioner to appear before the trial Court. Learned counsel has argued that, still the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, vide order dtd. 28/3/2023 by the Court below.

(3.) Learned State counsel has filed status report by way of an affidavit dtd. 20/2/2026, in the Court today, which is taken on record. Raising submissions in tandem with the said short reply, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition. While refuting the case set up by the petitioner, detailed arguments were advanced on merits, contending that the offence alleged against the petitioner is serious in nature. Furthermore, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that the petitioner was granted concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dtd. 27/7/2021. Learned State counsel has further submitted that given non-absence of the petitioner, learned trial Court issued bailable warrants against the petitioner, vide order dtd. 9/8/2022, and thereafter, non-bailable warrants were issued on 16/9/2022, 27/10/2022 and 5/1/2023, but still the petitioner did not turn up to cause appearance before the Court below. Vide order dtd. 16/9/2022, bail order/ bail/ surety bonds of the petitioner were cancelled and forfeited to the State. Thereafter, proclamation proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and vide impugned order dtd. 28/3/2023, he was declared as a proclaimed person after following due procedure under Sec. 82 of the Cr.P.C. Learned State counsel has further submitted that pursuant to the order dtd. 29/1/2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner caused appearance before the Court below on 9/2/2026 and furnished requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the said Court, whereupon, he was extended the concession of interim bail. Learned State counsel has argued that the learned Court below has followed the procedure as laid-down under Sec. 82 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 in letter and spirit and no discrepancy whatsoever is forthcoming from the records of the case. Accordingly, dismissal of the instant petition has been prayed for.