Non-Bailable Warrant Must Only Be Issued After Recording Reasons For Its Necessity: Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Bail Cancellation Order

Observing that issuance of non bailable warrant "must not be exercised in a mechanical manner and must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording cogent reasons that reflect the necessity of such a stringent course," the Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the bail cancellation order in a cheque bounce case.

Justice Sumeet Goel noted that the petitioner, after the grant of bail, was regularly appearing before the trial Court. However, on one date, the petitioner inadvertently failed to appear before the trial Court on account of his ill health. However, "the trial Court, straight away proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants against the petitioner."

The judge opined that "this amounts to an unjustifiable restriction on the procedural rights of the petitioner in the absence of any misconduct, lack of bona fides, or a deliberate attempt to evade the 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."

The Court was hearing plea filed under 528 of BNSS seeking quashing of the order passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram vide which the bail granted to the petitioner stands cancelled and the petitioner was ordered to be summoned through warrants of arrest in a complaint case under Negotiable Instruments Act.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was granted bail by the Court and was diligently attending all the hearings. He further iterated that the petitioner has been suffering from abnormal mild diffuse encephalopathy since the year 2021 i.e. a condition affecting the cognitive and physical abilities of the petitioner which is supported by the medical reports. 

Therefore he could not appear on one occasion and due to his medical condition cannot inform his lawyer.

Perusing, the records the Court noted that the petitioner, after the granting of bail, was regularly appearing before the trial court and could not appear on one hearing due to his ill-health.

Considering that "the factum of the prime object of cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bail bonds being securing the presence of the accused, the petitioner-accused having come forward himself to face trial, willingness shown by the petitioner-accused to appear before the trial Court on each and every date in accordance with law," the Court allowed the plea.

While setting aside the impugned order, the Court imposed certain conditions and directed the petitioner to "deposit costs of Rs.10,000 with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association."

Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Title: Jaskaran Singh v. State of Haryana and another

Click here to read/download the order