Punjab and Haryana High Court: In the present case, a petition was filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) for quashing the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda whereby bail of the accused was cancelled, bail bonds had been forfeited and non bailable warrants had been issued in case arising out of FIR under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) on account of his absence. A Single Judge Bench of Yashvir Singh Rathor J., while quashing the order, held that merely because the accused sought exemption on three out of six dates of hearing, it could not be inferred that he had willfully absented himself or was hampering the trial and bail should not be denied over it.
The accused was released on bail and on 8-8-2025, an application for exemption from the hearing was moved on his behalf, which was rejected, and the Trial Court observed that out of six hearings, the accused had remained absent on three dates, and that he sought exemption habitually. Thus, his bail was cancelled.
The accused, who was a resident of Mumbai, contended that in May 2025, he was present, and the case was adjourned to August 2025 for filing of a reply to the application under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) moved by him. He further contended that no substantial proceedings were to be conducted on that date, and it could not be inferred that he had tried to hamper the progress of the trial. He stated that his absence was neither intentional, nor did he ever intend to abscond or delay the trial.
The Court opined that no substantial proceedings were going to be conducted on that day from which it could be inferred that the accused had willfully absented himself to hamper the trial. Further, the Court stated that instead of cancelling the bail on account of his non-appearance, the Court ought to have exempted his personal appearance with a direction to appear on the next date when the case was adjourned for arguments and the punitive order of cancellation of bail could thus have been avoided.
The Court further observed that merely because the accused had sought exemption on three dates out of six dates of hearing, it could not be inferred that he had willfully absented himself or was hampering the trial. Thus, the Court quashed the impugned order and opined that the bail could have been cancelled only after recording a satisfaction that accused had willfully absented with cogent reasons reflecting the necessity of such a stringent course
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and ordered that the accused should be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on his appearance within 15 days. Further, the Court stated that if he failed to appear within 15 days, the benefit of bail granted by way of this order would come to an end.
[Dipesh Jain v. State of Punjab, CRMM No. 49295 of 2025, decided on 5-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Accused: Gursher Singh Dhillon, Advocate
For the Respondent: G.S. Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
