The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that an FIR registered solely to penalize an accused for non-appearance in court cannot justify denial of anticipatory bail once the accused has appeared, complied with court orders, and been released on regular bail. This ruling reinforces that procedural technicalities must not override the fundamental right to personal liberty under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, accused in FIR No. 91 dated 22.02.2019 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Faridabad, failed to appear before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC) on multiple occasions. Consequently, on 08.01.2026, the JMIC declared him a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 82 CrPC). Simultaneously, the Court directed the registration of a fresh FIR under Section 209 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 174-A IPC) for intentionally causing delay in judicial proceedings.
Key Facts
- FIR No. 91 dated 22.02.2019: Original case involving alleged financial irregularities
- 08.01.2026: JMIC declared petitioner a proclaimed person and directed registration of FIR No. 107 under Section 209 BNSS
- 23.03.2026: Petitioner appeared before the JMIC, paid costs of Rs. 1,000/-, and was released on regular bail with no objection from the complainant
- 19.03.2026: Impugned FIR No. 107 was formally registered under Section 209 BNSS
- Petitioner had not fled or evaded process; his absence was due to personal circumstances, not intent to obstruct justice
Procedural History
- 22.02.2019: Original FIR No. 91 registered at PS Kotwali, Faridabad
- 08.01.2026: JMIC declares petitioner a proclaimed person and directs registration of new FIR
- 19.03.2026: FIR No. 107 registered under Section 209 BNSS
- 23.03.2026: Petitioner appears before JMIC, pays Rs. 1,000/- costs, and is released on regular bail
- 29.04.2026: Present petition for anticipatory bail filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No. 107 dated 19.03.2026 under Section 209 BNSS, arguing that the FIR is a procedural afterthought with no substantive basis, especially after his voluntary appearance and compliance with court orders.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the registration of an FIR under Section 209 of the BNSS, 2023 for non-appearance in court, after the accused has already appeared, paid costs, and been released on regular bail, justifies denial of anticipatory bail under Section 482(1) of the BNSS, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the impugned FIR was registered not to investigate a substantive offence but to punish the petitioner for a procedural lapse. He emphasized that the purpose of declaring a proclaimed person - securing presence - was already fulfilled upon his voluntary appearance and payment of costs. He cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to underscore that anticipatory bail must be granted unless there is a real risk of flight or tampering. He further contended that Section 209 BNSS was never intended to be weaponized for punitive purposes after compliance.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Advocate General contended that once a person is declared a proclaimed offender and an FIR is registered under Section 209 BNSS, the order retains legal effect regardless of subsequent compliance. He argued that the registration of the FIR created a separate criminal proceeding, and the grant of regular bail in the original case did not nullify the new charge.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature and purpose of Section 209 of the BNSS, 2023, which criminalizes intentional delay in judicial proceedings. It noted that the provision is meant to deter deliberate obstruction, not to penalize inadvertent or remediable non-appearance.
"The very purpose of securing the presence of the accused through declaration as a proclaimed person has been achieved by his voluntary appearance, payment of costs, and grant of regular bail. To now arrest him under a subsequent FIR registered for the same default would be to convert a procedural remedy into a punitive instrument."
The Court held that the registration of the impugned FIR was a mechanical response to the JMIC’s direction, without independent assessment of necessity or proportionality. It observed that the petitioner had not absconded, had no history of non-compliance, and had fully remedied his default. The Court distinguished this from cases where accused flee jurisdiction or repeatedly ignore summons.
It further clarified that while the validity of the FIR may be challenged through other remedies, for the purpose of anticipatory bail, the court must assess whether custody is necessary. Here, the necessity was absent.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court granted anticipatory bail in FIR No. 107 dated 19.03.2026 under Section 209 BNSS. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. He shall comply with all conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023, including appearing before the court as required, not influencing witnesses, and not leaving the jurisdiction without permission.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Non-Appearance Alone Cannot Justify Criminal Prosecution
- Practitioners must challenge FIRs registered under Section 209 BNSS where the accused has appeared, paid costs, and been released on regular bail
- Courts must distinguish between willful obstruction and remediable default
- Anticipatory bail applications should be granted unless there is evidence of flight risk or intent to subvert justice
Procedural Compliance Nullifies Punitive FIRs
- Payment of costs and voluntary appearance extinguish the basis for punitive criminal proceedings
- Registration of a fresh FIR after compliance is an abuse of process
- Courts should not permit procedural orders to be converted into substantive criminal charges without independent scrutiny
Anticipatory Bail Is Not a Privilege But a Right
- The grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS is not contingent on the existence of an FIR alone
- The court must evaluate necessity, proportionality, and the accused’s conduct
- This judgment reinforces that liberty is the norm and custody the exception, even in cases involving procedural defaults
