Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has set aside an order declaring a Mohali realtor, accused in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case, a “proclaimed offender”, holding that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory procedure for publication of proclamation. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal allowed a criminal writ petition filed by Baldev Singh Bajwa, who was accused in FIR dated Oct 21, 2023, registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Kharar police station in Mohali. The high court quashed the Sept 29, 2026, order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharar, declaring Bajwa a proclaimed offender, subject to payment of costs of Rs 30,000 to be deposited in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.The HC also directed Bajwa to surrender before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharar, within 30 days and move an application for regular bail, which the trial court was directed to decide expeditiously. The petitioner,Bajwa, through counsel Nikhil Ghai, had approached the high court seeking quashing of orders dated April 16, 2026, and Sept 29, 2026, submitting that the petitioner had been granted regular bail by the high court on Nov 27, 2024, and had been regularly appearing before the trial court. He submitted that the petitioner was absent on March 12, 2026, and April 16, 2026, following which the trial court cancelled his bail without serving notice and without following the due process of law. The petitioner’s counsel further submitted that the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender on Sept 29, 2026, without compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). He also submitted that the dispute between the complainant and the petitioner had been amicably resolved through a compromise and that the petitioner was ready and willing to join the proceedings before the trial court. Opposing the petition, the state counsel, Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab, submitted that despite publication of the proclamation, the petitioner had failed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharar, and was rightly declared a proclaimed offender. The state sought dismissal of the petition.Examining the record, Justice Nagpal noted that the petitioner had been absent from the court on March 12, 2026, following which notices were directed to be issued for March 24 and April 16, 2026. On April 16, when the petitioner failed to appear, his bail was cancelled, bonds were forfeited and non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued for May 8 and June 5, 2026. The bench further noted that on June 5, the trial court recorded its satisfaction that the accused’s presence could not be procured through the existing process and ordered that he be summoned by way of proclamation. However, the high court observed, “There is no prima facie satisfaction recorded in the order that the petitioner had absconded from the proceedings.” The proclamation was issued for August 5, 2026. However, the petitioner was not declared a proclaimed offender on that date, and the case was adjourned to August 18, 2026, for notice to the serving official. The statement of the serving official, ASI Parminder Singh, was finally recorded on Sept 29, 2026.According to the statement, the official had visited the petitioner’s residence on June 15, 2026, but the accused was not available at the given address. He subsequently affixed one copy of the proclamation notice in the locality where the petitioner resided, another at the Kharar bus stand and the third on the notice board of the court complex at Kharar. The high court observed that the proclamation was not publicly read over at any place in the town or village where the petitioner resided. It held that the three modes of publication prescribed under Section 84(2)(i)(a) of the BNSS were conjunctive and not disjunctive, making compliance with all three mandatory. The Bench observed, “All three sub-clauses are mandatory and any violation whereof entails quashing of the order declaring an accused, a proclaimed person/offender.”The high court also found another flaw in the proceedings. The proclamation had been issued for August 5, 2026, and was received back served on the same day. However, the case was adjourned to August 18, Sept 1 and Sept 29 for notice to the serving official. The petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender on September 29 without issuance of a fresh proclamation or publication notifying him of the subsequent date fixed for appearance. The Bench held that the trial court had failed to adhere to the provisions of Section 84(1) of the BNSS and that the impugned order could not be sustained.Further, the HC noted that the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the IPC were not punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more, as required under Section 84(4) of the BNSS for declaring an accused a proclaimed offender. It held that the petitioner could not have been declared a proclaimed offender but a “proclaimed person” or “absconder”. Consequently, the high court set aside and quashed the September 29, 2026, order, subject to the payment of costs and the petitioner’s compliance with the directions to surrender and seek regular bail. The HC clarified that if the petitioner failed to appear before the trial court within the stipulated period or failed to deposit the costs, the petition would be deemed to be dismissed.
About The Author
