HEMPREET SINGH SEKHON vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/16031/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010083472026

Filing Number

CRM-M/825/2026

Filing Date

16-Jan-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/16031/2026

Registration Date

20-Mar-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Coram

Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh

Category

38.1 - QUASHING PETITIONS I/O ( 152 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 11-Apr-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HEMPREET SINGH SEKHON

    Adv. LACHHMAN SINGH

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

  2. 2.STATE OF PUNJAB

  3. 3.ROOP SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    Mr. Justice Surya Partap SinghView PDF

    CRM-M-16031-2026: SUMMARY The Punjab High Court quashed the trial court's proclamation order declaring Hempreet Singh a proclaimed offender, finding procedural defects in the declaration process. The court held that the mandatory requirement under Section 82(2)(i)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code—publicly reading the proclamation at a conspicuous place in the accused's area of residence—was not complied with; the constable's statement merely confirmed the proclamation was "read aloud" without specifying it was read in a public place. However, the court clarified this order concerns only the legality of proclamation; the trial court's earlier orders canceling bail, forfeiting bonds, and issuing arrest warrants remain intact, and the petitioner must surrender within two weeks or face further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/16031/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CRM-M-16031-2026: SUMMARY The Punjab High Court quashed the trial court's proclamation order declaring Hempreet Singh a proclaimed offender, finding procedural defects in the declaration process. The court held that the mandatory requirement under Section 82(2)(i)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code—publicly reading the proclamation at a conspicuous place in the accused's area of residence—was not complied with; the constable's statement merely confirmed the proclamation was "read aloud" without specifying it was read in a public place. However, the court clarified this order concerns only the legality of proclamation; the trial court's earlier orders canceling bail, forfeiting bonds, and issuing arrest warrants remain intact, and the petitioner must surrender within two weeks or face further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case