The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that declaring an accused a proclaimed offender solely due to non-appearance, without evidence of intentional evasion, undermines the principle of fair trial. In a significant ruling, the Court granted the petitioner a one-time opportunity to surrender and resume trial, emphasizing that procedural justice must balance efficiency with equity.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sukhbir Singh, was named as an accused in FIR No. 74 dated 09.04.2020, registered at Police Station Dharmkot, District Moga, under Sections 379-B, 411 and 188 IPC, Section 51-B of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The case arose from allegations of theft and unlawful possession of arms during a disaster-related incident.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was granted regular bail on 15.06.2020 (Annexure P-2) following initial arrest.
- Subsequently, he relocated from Baghapurana, District Moga, to Ludhiana for personal and occupational reasons.
- Due to the change of residence, he did not receive court summons, bailable warrants, or non-bailable warrants issued by the Trial Court.
- He remained unaware of the proceedings and did not appear before the Court between 2020 and 2025.
- On 01.07.2025, the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, declared him a proclaimed offender (Annexure P-3).
- Co-accused Manmeet Singh and Sukhpreet Singh were acquitted by the Trial Court on 29.01.2026.
- No FIR under Section 209 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 174-A IPC) has been registered against the petitioner.
Procedural History
- 09.04.2020: FIR No. 74 registered at PS Dharmkot, Moga.
- 15.06.2020: Petitioner granted regular bail.
- 2020 - 2025: Petitioner absent from proceedings due to relocation; no service of process established.
- 01.07.2025: Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, declared petitioner a proclaimed offender.
- 17.04.2026: Writ petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: The petitioner asserts that his absence was neither intentional nor deliberate. He had no knowledge of the court proceedings due to change of address and lack of service. He has no history of non-appearance and is willing to surrender and fully cooperate with the trial. He emphasizes that no prosecution under Section 209 BNSS has been initiated, indicating the State’s own inaction.
Respondent’s Position: The State opposes the petition, arguing that prolonged absence from court proceedings constitutes willful defiance of judicial authority. The State contends that once declared a proclaimed offender, the petitioner must surrender unconditionally and face trial without any precondition.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 01.07.2025 declaring him a proclaimed offender. He requests permission to surrender before the Trial Court, be released on bail upon furnishing fresh bonds, and be allowed to continue trial proceedings under strict conditions of future attendance.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether declaring an accused a proclaimed offender under Section 528 of BNSS is justified when his absence from proceedings is due to unintentional non-receipt of court process, and whether the Court may grant a one-time opportunity to resume trial without imposing punitive measures.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Ashish Kumar Honda @ Ashish Handa v. State of Punjab (2022 (4) RCR (Criminal) 765) and Veena @ Veena Devi v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-2206-2025), where this Court held that the primary objective of criminal procedure is to secure the presence of the accused for expeditious trial, not to punish absence per se. It was argued that the petitioner’s relocation was not an act of evasion, and the absence was due to lack of service. The acquittal of co-accused further supports the petitioner’s claim of wrongful implication. He offered to surrender, furnish fresh bail bonds, and submit a binding affidavit to ensure future compliance.
For the Respondent
The State contended that any failure to appear before the Court, regardless of cause, amounts to contempt of judicial process. It argued that proclaimed offender status is a necessary tool to compel attendance and that granting relief in such cases would encourage non-compliance. The State maintained that the petitioner must surrender unconditionally and face trial without any assurance of bail or procedural leniency.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the systemic burden caused by absconding accused but emphasized that the purpose of declaring someone a proclaimed offender is not punitive but procedural - to facilitate trial. The Court observed:
"The paramount consideration of the Court is to secure presence of accused on each and every date for speeding up the trial for its final conclusion. Already Courts are flooded with so much litigation, resulting in slow pace of work, because of more than one reason. The required energy and manpower be used for expediting the proceedings of the Court, instead of running after the accused persons to get hold of them."
The Court distinguished between intentional evasion and inadvertent non-appearance. It noted that the petitioner had been on regular bail, had no prior history of non-appearance, and had not been served with any notice or warrant. The acquittal of co-accused further weakened the prosecution’s case against him. The Court held that the State’s failure to register an FIR under Section 209 BNSS indicated that it had not pursued enforcement measures, suggesting the absence was not treated as deliberate.
The Court also rejected the notion that proclaimed offender status must remain permanent. It reaffirmed its earlier jurisprudence that courts must adopt a pragmatic approach to ensure justice is not delayed indefinitely due to procedural rigidity. The Court found the petitioner’s offer to surrender, furnish fresh bonds, and submit a binding undertaking to appear in all future hearings to be a reasonable and sufficient safeguard.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The order dated 01.07.2025 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender was set aside. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Trial Court on or before 07.05.2026. Upon surrender, he shall be released on bail upon furnishing fresh bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. He must submit a sworn affidavit affirming his commitment to appear in all future proceedings without exception, except with prior court permission. The order shall be inoperative if an FIR under Section 209 of BNSS has already been registered and remains pending.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Absence Without Notice Does Not Equal Evasion
- Practitioners must now argue that proclaimed offender status cannot be automatically triggered by non-appearance if service of process is unproven.
- Courts must examine whether the accused received actual notice or had reasonable opportunity to appear.
- Relocation alone, without evidence of intent to evade, cannot justify permanent exclusion from trial.
Judicial Efficiency Requires Pragmatic Flexibility
- The judgment establishes that expediting trial is the overriding objective, not punishing absence.
- Courts may now grant conditional relief - such as surrender with bail and binding undertakings - to avoid indefinite delays.
- This reduces the burden on police and courts to enforce arrest warrants for non-voluntary absconders.
Undertakings Are Legally Binding Tools
- A sworn affidavit of future compliance, coupled with fresh bail bonds, is now a recognized substitute for punitive measures.
- Lawyers should draft such undertakings with specificity: dates of appearance, contact details, and consequences of breach.
- Failure to comply with the undertaking may lead to immediate cancellation of bail and re-declaration as proclaimed offender.
