Allowed¶35

Aslam Noor v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC27 May 2025CRM-M/1556/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Proclaimed person — quashing of declaration under Section 82 Cr.P.C.; failure of executing official to publicly read proclamation vitiates Section 82 proceedings; petition under Section 528 BNSS 2023; FIR No. 28 dated 24.02.2024, Sections 15 & 25 NDPS Act, PS Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana; petitioner later granted interim anticipatory bail (08.04.2025, confirmed 27.05.2025) and joined trial; impugned SDJM Jagraon order dated 16.10.2024 set aside; Punjab & Haryana High Court; CRM-M-1556-2025; decided 27.05.2025; Justice Sanjiv Berry.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-8) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person set aside. ¶35

Aslam Noor Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-8) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person set aside.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 16.10.2024 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is sustainable where the petitioner alleges he was never served with notice, warrants or proclamation, and the executing official did not publicly read the proclamation as required by Section 82 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

While issuing the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the statutory provisions were not followed meticulously as the executing official had not publicly read the proclamation as required; on this score the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Independently, the petitioner has already joined the proceedings and appeared before the trial Court to face the trial, therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Sanjiv Berry, J., oral) allowed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and set aside the order dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-8) of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, in CRM-221-2024 ('State vs. Aslam Noor and another'), whereby the petitioner stood declared a proclaimed person in FIR No. 28 dated 24.02.2024 (Sections 15 and 25, NDPS Act, PS Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana). Held: (i) while issuing the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., the statutory provisions were not followed meticulously because the executing official had not publicly read the proclamation as required, rendering the declaration unsustainable; and (ii) in any event, the petitioner had during pendency been granted interim anticipatory bail (order dated 08.04.2025 in CRM-M-15910-2025, confirmed 27.05.2025) and had joined the proceedings and appeared before the trial Court to face trial, so the impugned order was liable to be and was set aside. Judgment marked speaking/reasoned and reportable.

¶1

CRM-M-1556-2025 - 1

¶2

302

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-1556-2025 Date of Decision: 27.05.2025

ASLAM NOOR

... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

... Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY.

¶11

Present:Mr. Naresh Kalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The instant petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, in case CRM-221-2024, ‘State vs. Aslam Noor and another’, whereby the petitioner had been declared as proclaimed person in case FIR (Annexure P-1). Details of the FIR are mentioned below: -

¶16

FIR No.	Dated	Sections	Police Station
28	24.02.2024	15 and 25 of the NDPS Act IPC	Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana

¶17

During course of hearing following orders were passed on

¶18

Gyan Chand 2025.05.31 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-1556-2025 - 2

23.01.2025:-

“ xxx xxx xxx

2. Heard.

3. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner after having been nominated in case FIR (Annexure P-1) was never served with any notice, warrants or proclamation but has been wrongly declared as proclaimed person by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 16.10.2024 (supra). He contends that the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents and has placed on record copy of the proclamation dated 11.07.2024 issued by the concerned Court requiring the presence of the petitioner in Court for 19.09.2024, the same is taken on record and marked as Annexure‘A’. He has also placed on record the statement of the executing official dated 12.09.2024, the same is taken on record and marked as Annexure ‘B’, to mention that the house of the petitioner was found locked and the proclamation was affixed allegedly on 12.09.2024. As per the order dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure P-7), the statement of executing official was recorded and the case was adjourned for 16.10.2024 for awaiting the presence of the petitioner. He contends that there was no notice or proclamation for the petitioner to appear before the learned Trial Court on 16.10.2024. He contends that the impugned order had been passed in violation of the provisions of Section 82 Cr. PC. Hence, the present petition.

¶24

4. Notice of motion, returnable for 27.02.2025.

¶25

5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Ankit Grewal, DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice and does not dispute the factual matrix of the case. He seeks time to file the status report/reply in the matter.

¶26

6. In the meanwhile, operation of the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 (supra) declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person in case FIR (Annexure P-1) shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the aforesaid petition, petitioner has filed CRM-M-15910-2025 seeking anticipatory bail in present FIR (Annexure P-1) and vide order dated 08.04.2025 petitioner was granted interim bail and petitioner has

¶28

Gyan Chand 2025.05.31 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-1556-2025 - 3

¶30

joined the proceedings and the said interim bail has been confirmed vide order dated 27.05.2025.

¶31

Learned State counsel assisted by Inspector Kikar Singh Investigating Officer, has not disputed the factum of the interim bail being granted to the petitioner on 08.04.2025 and his joining the proceedings in the trial Court and also the fact of confirmation of bail thereof. However, he submits that petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C.

¶32

After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it transpires that vide order dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, in case CRM-221-2024, ‘State vs. Aslam Noor and another’, petitioner was declared proclaimed person. In the meanwhile, petitioner had filed CRM-M-15910-2025 seeking anticipatory bail in present FIR (Annexure P-1) and vide order dated 08.04.2025 petitioner was granted interim bail and he has joined the proceedings before the learned trial Court and the said interim bail has been confirmed vide order dated 27.05.2025. Further, from the perusal of record, it transpires that while issuing proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C, statutory provisions laid therein have not been followed meticulously as the executing official had not publicly read the proclamation as was required under the Provisions of the Section 82 Cr.P.C, therefore, on this score also the impugned order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person in this case is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Even otherwise, the petitioner has already joined the proceedings and appeared in the trial Court to face the trial, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

¶33

Gyan Chand 2025.05.31 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

CRM-M-1556-2025 - 4

¶35

In these circumstances, the present petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon, in case CRM-221-2024, ‘State vs. Aslam Noor and another’, whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed person is hereby set aside.

¶36

Accordingly, the petitioner stands disposed of.

¶37

			(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE
27.05.2025
Gyan
	i)	Whether speaking/reasoned?	Yes
	ii)	Whether reportable?	Yes

¶38

Gyan Chand 2025.05.31 13:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Aslam Noor v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aslam Noor v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akashdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Avinash Gill Alias Avinash Kumar Alias Parotha Vs State of Punjab

Roop Singh Vs State of Haryana

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Balwant Kaur Vs State of Ut Chandigarh and Another

Gurjant Singh Alias Janta Vs State of Punjab