The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that declaring an accused a proclaimed person without establishing deliberate evasion or providing notice violates fundamental procedural fairness. This judgment clarifies that courts cannot rely on bald assertions of non-appearance; instead, they must examine whether the accused’s absence was intentional and whether due process under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was followed.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a woman, was named as an accused in FIR No. 208 dated 17.09.2020 registered at Police Station City Kharar under multiple sections of the IPC and Arms Act. Later, additional charges under Sections 302, 449, 420, and others were added. She was also implicated in a separate FIR No. 330 dated 18.11.2024 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and the Immigration Act. Due to fear of arrest in the second case, she avoided appearing in the first trial, leading to her being declared a proclaimed person on 15.04.2025.
Procedural History
- 17.09.2020: FIR No. 208 registered against petitioner
- 18.11.2024: Second FIR registered, heightening fear of arrest
- 15.04.2025: Additional Sessions Judge declared petitioner a proclaimed person without issuing notice or warrant
- 2025: Petitioner approached High Court under Section 528 of BNSS challenging the proclamation order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the proclamation order, arguing she was never served with any notice, warrant, or summons, and that she was willing to appear before the trial court on all dates. She also undertook to comply with all future court directions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits a court to declare an accused a proclaimed person without first attempting personal service or establishing intentional evasion of the judicial process.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that the trial court violated Section 84 BNSS, which mandates that proclamation can only follow failure to comply with a prior warrant or summons. No such document was ever served on the petitioner. He cited State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh to emphasize that proclamation is a last resort and requires proof of deliberate avoidance. He further submitted that the petitioner had consistently expressed willingness to appear and had voluntarily approached the High Court, demonstrating no intent to evade justice.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the petitioner’s prolonged non-appearance, despite multiple opportunities, amounted to deliberate evasion. Counsel relied on the trial court’s discretion under Section 84 BNSS to issue proclamation when an accused is untraceable. However, no evidence was produced to show that attempts were made to serve notice or that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legislative intent behind Section 84 BNSS, noting that its purpose is to secure the presence of the accused - not to punish or penalize. The Court held that proclamation is not an automatic consequence of non-appearance but requires a judicial determination of intent.
"The object behind issuance of non-bailable warrants or proclamation is only to secure the presence of the accused."
The Court rejected the State’s bald assertion that the petitioner deliberately avoided court, emphasizing that mere absence without proof of notice or knowledge cannot be equated with intentional evasion. It distinguished this case from those where accused persons absconded after being served, noting that here, the record showed no attempt at personal service.
The Court further held that while courts may impose costs for non-compliance, such measures must follow due process. The petitioner’s voluntary appearance before the High Court and her unconditional undertaking to appear in future proceedings demonstrated good faith and negated any inference of malafide intent.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court set aside the proclamation order dated 15.04.2025, holding that proclamation cannot be issued without prior notice or proof of intentional evasion. The petitioner was directed to appear before the trial court within two weeks, deposit Rs. 10,000 as costs, furnish bail bonds, and file an affidavit undertaking future compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Notice Is Mandatory Before Proclamation
- Practitioners must now insist on proof of service of summons or warrant before any proclamation is upheld
- Courts cannot presume knowledge of proceedings; the burden lies on the State to demonstrate attempted service
- Failure to produce service records renders proclamation void ab initio
Willingness to Appear Defeats Presumption of Evasion
- An accused who voluntarily approaches the High Court and offers to appear regularly cannot be presumed to be evading justice
- Courts must treat undertakings to appear as credible unless contradicted by evidence of prior flight or concealment
- Proclamation should be reserved for those who actively conceal themselves or ignore multiple notices
Costs as Alternative to Proclamation
- Courts may impose monetary costs for non-appearance without declaring someone a proclaimed person
- This provides a proportionate remedy that respects due process while ensuring accountability
- Practitioners should argue for costs as a first step before seeking proclamation, especially in non-violent cases
