Bail Can't Be Cancelled Merely Because Accused Sought Exemption From Appearance On Few Hearing Dates: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that seeking exemption from appearance on a few hearing dates during trial, by itself, does not justify cancellation of bail granted to an accused.

Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor said,

"Merely, because petitioner had sought exemption on three dates out of six dates of hearing, it cannot be inferred that he had wilfully absented himself or was hampering the trial. The bail could have been cancelled only after recording a satisfaction that petitioner had wilfully absented with cogent reasons reflecting the necessity of such a stringent course. On this account, the impugned order is liable to be set aside."

The Court was hearing a plea challenging the cancellation of bail in a fraud case under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused-petitioner was released on bail and being a resident of Mumbai, he had earlier moved applications seeking exemption, which were allowed.

On next hearing, petitioner was present and case was adjourned for filing of a reply to the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner. However, an application for exemption was moved on his behalf, which was rejected, and the trial Court observed that out of six hearings, the petitioner had remained absent on three dates and he habitually seeks exemption. Consequently, the request for exemption was declined and his bail was cancelled.

After hearing the submissions, the High Court noted a Co-ordinate Bench judgment in Sahib Singh @ Saab Singh Vs. State of Punjab where it was held that issuance of non-bailable warrants should not be exercised in a mechanical manner and must be adopted sparingly, only upon recording cogent reasons reflecting the necessity of such a stringent course.

It has been further held that cancellation of bail amounts to unjustifiable restriction on procedural rights of petitioner in the absence of any misconduct or deliberate attempt to evade proceedings and petitioner-accused was directed to appear before the trial Court and to furnish an undertaking to appear on each and every date of hearing and was ordered to be released on bail, it added.

Justice Rathor highlighted that in the present case also, bail was cancelled on the date when case was fixed for filing of reply to the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner and no substantial proceedings were going to be conducted from which it could be inferred that the petitioner had wilfully absented himself to hamper the trial.

"Rather, 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 on the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and the punitive order of cancellation of bail could thus have been avoided," the bench opined.

As a result of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order was set aside and it was ordered that petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court on his appearance before the trial Court within 15 days from order.

Mr. Gursher Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. G.S. Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab.

Title: DIPESH JAIN v. STATE OF PUNJAB

Click here to read/download the order