The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that a declaration of a person as proclaimed offender cannot stand if their absence from trial proceedings stems from genuine, non-deliberate hardship, even where procedural defaults occurred. This judgment reinforces the principle that courts must balance procedural rigor with substantive justice, particularly when the accused demonstrates willingness to cooperate.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Charanjeet Kaur, was declared a proclaimed offender by the Trial Court on 17.12.2022 in connection with FIR No. 121 dated 12.08.2017, registered at Police Station Nangal, under Sections 365, 382, 34 and 411 IPC. The proceedings against her were initiated after she failed to appear before the Trial Court despite issuance of multiple warrants.
Key Facts
- FIR was registered on 12.08.2017 against the petitioner and co-accused for offences including kidnapping and criminal conspiracy
- Warrants were issued against the petitioner on multiple occasions between 2017 and 2022, all of which were returned unexecuted
- The petitioner claims she never received any summons or notices due to change of residence, lack of proper service, and personal crises
- Her husband suffered a serious illness and passed away during the pendency of proceedings, causing severe emotional and logistical disruption
- The COVID-19 pandemic further restricted mobility and access to legal processes between 2020 and 2022
- Co-accused in the same case were acquitted by the Trial Court due to failure of prosecution to prove the case and lack of support from the complainant
- No further action, including registration of an FIR under Section 209 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 174-A IPC), was taken after the proclamation
Procedural History
- 12.08.2017: FIR No. 121 registered at PS Nangal under Sections 365, 382, 34 and 411 IPC
- 2017 - 2022: Multiple bailable and non-bailable warrants issued against petitioner, all returned unexecuted
- 17.12.2022: Trial Court declared petitioner a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS)
- 05.05.2026: Petitioner filed Writ Petition under Section 528 BNSS before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking quashing of the proclamation order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the proclamation order dated 17.12.2022, release from the status of proclaimed offender, and an opportunity to surrender before the Trial Court with bail on conditions. She undertook to appear regularly in all future proceedings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the declaration of a person as a proclaimed offender under Section 528 of the BNSS is valid when their absence from trial proceedings is attributable to bona fide, non-deliberate circumstances such as personal tragedy, pandemic-related disruption, and non-service of process, rather than intentional evasion.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that her non-appearance was neither intentional nor evasive. She cited the unexecuted warrants, lack of service, death of her husband, illness, and pandemic restrictions as compelling reasons for absence. She emphasized that co-accused had been acquitted, undermining the prosecution’s case. She offered to surrender unconditionally and cooperate fully with the trial, and noted that no further action had been taken under Section 209 BNSS. Reliance was placed on Ashish Kumar Honda v. State of Punjab and Veena Devi v. State of Punjab to support the proposition that courts should grant one opportunity for genuine reintegration into proceedings.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed the petition, contending that prolonged absence despite multiple warrants constituted willful defiance of court process. The DAG acknowledged that no FIR under Section 209 BNSS had been registered but maintained that the petitioner must surrender and face trial. The State did not dispute the factual claims of hardship but argued that procedural compliance cannot be compromised.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the petitioner’s absence and the procedural history. It noted that warrants were repeatedly returned unexecuted, yet the Trial Court escalated to proclamation without recording any finding that the petitioner had deliberately absconded. The Court emphasized that the primary objective of criminal procedure is not punishment for absence, but adjudication of guilt or innocence.
"Primary object of every Court is only to examine the commission of crime in question before it vis a vis the person/accused, who is subjected to such proceedings, and if possible justice be imparted at the earliest without unnecessary delay."
The Court distinguished between intentional evasion and absence due to unavoidable circumstances, citing its own precedents in Ashish Kumar Honda and Veena Devi. It held that courts must not mechanically apply proclamation provisions, especially when the accused is willing to return and the case against co-accused has collapsed. The Court observed that the State had taken no further action under Section 209 BNSS, indicating the absence of prosecutorial urgency.
The Court further noted that the system cannot be burdened with enforcing warrants against persons whose non-appearance is not malicious, particularly when the accused offers to surrender and submit to trial conditions.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court set aside the proclamation order dated 17.12.2022. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the Trial Court on or before 25.05.2026. Upon surrender, she was to be released on bail upon furnishing fresh bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. She was required to submit a sworn affidavit undertaking to appear regularly in all future proceedings without delay. The Court clarified that if an FIR under Section 209 BNSS had already been registered and remained pending, this order would be inoperative.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Absence Due to Hardship Is Not Automatic Evasion
- Practitioners must now argue that non-appearance due to death in family, illness, pandemic, or non-service of process must be evaluated contextually, not mechanically
- Courts cannot presume intentionality merely because warrants were unexecuted - a specific finding of deliberate evasion is mandatory
- Proclamation should be a last resort, not the first step, especially where co-accused have been acquitted
Surrender and Undertaking Can Override Proclamation
- A petitioner’s voluntary offer to surrender, coupled with a binding affidavit of future compliance, constitutes a valid ground for setting aside proclamation
- Courts are now empowered to grant one-time relief to reintegrate accused into proceedings without prejudice
- Bail conditions may be imposed, but the status of proclaimed offender must be lifted to enable fair trial
Procedural Inaction Undermines State’s Case
- Failure to register an FIR under Section 209 BNSS after proclamation weakens the State’s position
- Courts may infer lack of prosecutorial interest where no further steps are taken
- Proclamation without follow-up action may be viewed as an abuse of process
