Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside 2002 Proclaimed Offender Order Against Man Who Moved to Gujarat Unaware of Pending Trial

Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj quashed a 24-year-old proclaimed offender declaration, finding the petitioner's absence stemmed from ignorance of ongoing proceedings, not wilful evasion.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has set aside an order from 2002 that declared a man a proclaimed offender in a rash driving and negligent homicide case, after finding that his absence from trial proceedings was not deliberate. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj, sitting singly, disposed of the petition in Khilu Ram @ Khelo Ram v State of Punjab on 14 May 2026, subject to the petitioner depositing costs and appearing before the trial court within a fixed period. The court accepted that the petitioner had relocated to Gujarat believing the matter had been settled between the parties, and that he had never been served, either by ordinary or substituted service, before being declared a proclaimed person under the impugned order dated 4 April 2002.

The FIR and the Proclaimed Offender Declaration

FIR No. 184, dated 22 November 1997, was registered at Police Station Mohali, District Ropar, against the petitioner under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, provisions dealing with rash driving and causing death by negligence. The petitioner was released on bail in 1999 during the course of trial proceedings before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar.

After his release on bail, the petitioner contended that the matter was compromised between the parties. Under that impression, he moved to Gujarat to earn his livelihood, believing no further proceedings remained pending against him. He did not appear before the trial court thereafter.

On 4 April 2002, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar, declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender. The petitioner's counsel argued before the High Court that this declaration was made without complying with the requirements of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the provision that governs the proclamation process, and that the petitioner had never been served with any notice, whether by ordinary or substituted service, before the order was passed.

Petitioner's Case: Ignorance, Not Evasion

Before Justice Bhardwaj, counsel for the petitioner pressed two distinct points. The first was procedural: that the requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. had not been followed before the proclamation was issued. The second was factual: that the petitioner's non-appearance was not intentional but arose from a genuine lack of legal awareness and the mistaken belief that the compromise had concluded the matter.

Counsel submitted that the petitioner was not conversant with legal procedures and had no reason to believe that trial proceedings were continuing in his absence. He further submitted that the petitioner was now willing to join the proceedings and abide by the bail conditions imposed by the court.

The State, represented by Mr. Ekom Pal Sagoo, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, opposed the petition. The State's position was that the trial court had rightly declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender because he had remained absent despite orders of the court.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Bhardwaj, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, accepted the petitioner's explanation in substance. The court found that the petitioner had remained absent not out of wilful defiance but because he was unaware of the ongoing proceedings, having shifted to Gujarat. The court recorded that the petitioner was now keen and ready to face the trial.

The court did not entirely excuse the conduct, it imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 to be deposited in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Dispensary Welfare Fund within one week of receipt of the order. This cost condition was made a prerequisite for the relief to take effect.

The court also built in a compliance mechanism with a clear consequence for default. The petitioner was directed to appear before the trial court within 10 days of receiving the order and to file an application for bail along with the receipt evidencing deposit of costs. If he did so, the trial court was directed to admit him to bail subject to its own satisfaction, and to then proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

Critically, the court granted the petitioner protection from arrest for 10 days from the date of receipt of the order, a window designed to allow him to comply without the risk of immediate detention. However, the court made clear that this protection and the benefit of the order setting aside the 2002 proclamation would both lapse automatically if the petitioner failed to comply with the directions.

The Default Clause

The order contains an explicit default provision: “in case the petitioner fails to comply with the abovesaid direction, he will have no benefit of abovesaid protection granted by this Court and order under challenge dated 04.04.2002, would automatically come in force.” This means the proclaimed offender status would revive without any further judicial step if the petitioner does not appear before the trial court and deposit costs within the stipulated period.

This structure of conditional quashing with an automatic revival clause places the burden squarely on the petitioner to demonstrate his stated willingness to face trial through concrete action rather than mere assurance.

Outcome

The petition in CRM-M-27317-2026 was disposed of on 14 May 2026. The order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kharar, dated 4 April 2002, declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender, was set aside subject to the following conditions:

• The petitioner must deposit Rs. 25,000 as costs in the Punjab and Haryana High Court Dispensary Welfare Fund within one week of receiving the order.
• The petitioner must appear before the trial court within 10 days of receiving the order and file a bail application along with the cost deposit receipt.
• Upon such appearance and filing, the trial court is directed to admit the petitioner to bail subject to its satisfaction and proceed with the trial.
• The petitioner has protection from arrest for 10 days from receipt of the order.
• If the petitioner fails to comply, the protection and the benefit of the order lapse, and the 2002 proclaimed offender order automatically revives.