Supreme Court: In an appeal while deciding whether, after suspension of sentence and grant of bail in a criminal appeal, the appellate/revisional court is justified in insisting upon the personal appearance of accused on every date of hearing and in cancelling bail with issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW), a Division Bench of Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., held that directing personal appearance of accused before appellate/revisional court on every date after suspension of sentence & grant of bail is not warranted.
In the instant matter, the appellant, accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), was initially granted suspension of sentence and released on bail, which was extended from time to time. Subsequently, the appellate court cancelled the bail, issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW), and took the appellant into custody.
Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, however, the Court adjourned the proceedings on 14.11.2025. That adjournment order was assailed before the Supreme Court.
While issuing notice on 27-11-2025, the Supreme Court recorded that the petitioner’s counsel had been changed on more than six occasions; petitioner’s mother expired in between; petitioner had sought exemption on medical grounds (Herpes Zoster), which was allowed; yet, when the matter was called, the order of suspension and grant of bail was recalled and NBW issued. The Court noted that the petitioner surrendered and sought bail which was later rejected. The petitioner approached High Court for the bail, the proceedings stood adjourned from time to time “due to paucity of time,” and on account of pendency of the appeal before the Sessions Judge, the High Court proceedings were also adjourned.
The Court stated that once the appellate/revisional court, being satisfied of the necessity, should suspend the sentence and grant bail, as the appeal may remain pending “for months or years together” and may be adjourned for various reasons at the instance of the appellant—accused, the State, or the complainant. In such circumstances, calling for personal appearance of accused on every date “would be burdensome to such accused and same is not warranted at all and it would serve no purpose.”
The Court observed that, in the event of dismissal of the appeal or revision, the consequences would automatically follow, and the jurisdictional Magistrate would be fully empowered to secure the presence of the accused in accordance with law.
The Court stated that it was “appalling and shocking” that the appellate court insisted on personal appearance of accused on every date despite suspension of sentence, and that the proper course would have been to appoint an amicus curiae and hear the appeal on merits or grant an opportunity to make alternate arrangements if counsel was not assisting the court. The Court asserted that the pendency of the appeal for more than eight years was unjustifiable, but that by itself could not justify the course adopted by the appellate court.
The Court disposed of the appeal and held that directing the appellant—accused to be present before the appellate or revisional court “would not be warranted particularly after an order for suspension of sentence has been passed and bail has been granted.”
The Court directed that the bail granted by its order dated 27-11-2025 shall continue to operate till disposal of appeal before Sessions Court and that the appellant shall cooperate for expeditious disposal, preferably within three months. The Court also directed that a copy of the order be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for circulation to the District Judiciary through an appropriate circular.
[Meenakshi v. State of Haryana, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 94, Decided on 07-01-2026]