Punjab and Haryana High Court: In an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the Trial Court’s order whereby the bail granted to the accused was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued against him, a Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel, JJ., allowed the application, opining that the issuance of the impugned order amounted to an unjustifiable restriction on the procedural rights of the accused in the absence of any misconduct, lack of bona fides, or a deliberate attempt to evade proceedings on his behalf.
Background
A case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(‘NI Act’) was pending against the accused. He had been granted bail in the said case but on account of non-appearance his bail was cancelled vide the impugned order.
Aggrieved, he filed the present application.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that a perusal of the record revealed that the accused, after being granted bail, was regularly appearing before the Trial Court. However, on one date, he inadvertently failed to appear before the Trial Court due to ill-health and the Trial Court straightaway proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants against the accused. The Court opined that this amounted to an unjustifiable restriction on the procedural rights of the accused in the absence of any misconduct, lack of bona fides, or a deliberate attempt to evade proceedings on his behalf. The issuance of non bailable warrants must not be exercised in a mechanical manner. It must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording cogent reasons that reflect the necessity of such a stringent course.
Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the factum that the prime object of cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bail bonds was securing the presence of the accused, the accused having come forward himself to face trial, willingness of the accused to appear before the Trial Court on every date, and there being no tangible material to indicate the accused’s likelihood to interfere with the prosecution evidence, the Court allowed the application.
Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside subject to the accused appearing before the Trial Court on the next date of hearing and furnishing an undertaking that he shall continue to appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing. Further, the Court directed the accused to deposit Rs. 10,000 as costs to the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association.
[Jaskaran Singh v. State of Haryana, CRM-M No. 20514 of 2025, decided on 16-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Vimal Kumar Gupta
