The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bonds must be proportionate and grounded in clear evidence of deliberate evasion, not mere inadvertent absence. In a significant ruling under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court emphasized that liberty is the norm and custody the exception, especially where no threat to evidence or trial integrity is established.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Paramjeet Singh @ Tinku, was granted regular bail on 17.01.2020 by the Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib, in connection with FIR No. 257 dated 19.12.2019 registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He had been regularly appearing before the trial court since the grant of bail. On 11.11.2025, the petitioner failed to appear in person before the trial court. He filed an application seeking exemption from personal appearance, citing unavoidable circumstances. The trial court rejected the application outright, cancelled his bail, forfeited his bail bonds and surety bonds, and directed issuance of non-bailable warrants against him without any inquiry into the reason for non-appearance.
Key Facts
- FIR No. 257 of 2019 registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act at Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib
- Regular bail granted on 17.01.2020 by the Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib
- Petitioner appeared before the trial court on all prior dates of hearing
- On 11.11.2025, petitioner failed to appear; application for exemption filed same day
- Trial court rejected the application without recording reasons or calling for explanation
- Bail cancelled, bonds forfeited, and non-bailable warrants issued on 11.11.2025
- No allegation of tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or absconding
- Petitioner submitted an unequivocal undertaking to appear on all future dates
Procedural History
- 19.12.2019: FIR registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act
- 17.01.2020: Regular bail granted by Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib
- 11.11.2025: Petitioner absent from hearing; application for exemption rejected; bail cancelled, bonds forfeited, warrants issued
- 16.04.2026: Petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 17944 of 2026 under Section 528 of BNSS before the Punjab and Haryana High Court
- 06.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Sumeet Goel
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 11.11.2025 cancelling bail, setting aside the forfeiture of bonds, recalling the non-bailable warrants, and directing the trial court to reinstate his bail on appropriate conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the cancellation of bail, forfeiture of bonds, and issuance of non-bailable warrants under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are justified solely on the ground of inadvertent non-appearance, without any evidence of deliberate evasion, threat to trial integrity, or breach of bail conditions.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that the petitioner’s absence was neither intentional nor deliberate, and that he had consistently appeared before the trial court since bail was granted. He submitted a written undertaking to appear on all future dates and cooperate fully in the trial. Counsel relied on Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI to assert that bail is not punitive, and deprivation of liberty must be justified by necessity, not convenience. The cancellation was disproportionate and violated Article 21 of the Constitution.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General contended that the petitioner had misused the privilege of bail by failing to appear without a plausible explanation. He argued that serious offences under the NDPS Act warrant strict compliance, and non-appearance undermines the judicial process. The trial court’s order, he submitted, was within its discretionary powers to ensure the accused’s presence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive review of constitutional principles governing bail, drawing extensively from Supreme Court precedents. It emphasized that the primary purpose of bail is to secure the accused’s presence at trial, not to punish pre-conviction. The Court observed:
"The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon."
It further cited Gudikanti Narasimhulu to underscore that mechanical detention without assessing community roots, likelihood of flight, or risk to evidence is unreasonable. The Court noted that the trial court had not recorded any finding that the petitioner posed a threat to witnesses, evidence, or public order. No material was presented to suggest deliberate absconding or breach of conditions.
The Court held that inadvertent absence, especially where the accused has a history of compliance, cannot justify the drastic step of cancelling bail and issuing non-bailable warrants. The trial court’s action was found to be arbitrary and disproportionate, violating the principle of proportionality and the presumption of innocence.
The Court also clarified that while courts may impose conditions on bail, such conditions must be reasonable and not punitive. The forfeiture of bonds without an opportunity to explain absence was deemed legally unsustainable.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 11.11.2025 cancelling bail, forfeiting bonds, and issuing non-bailable warrants was set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on or before 16.04.2026 and shall furnish a written undertaking to appear on all future hearing dates. The petitioner shall deposit costs of ₹15,000 with the High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund as a condition precedent. Failure to deposit costs shall result in dismissal of the petition. The trial court retains liberty to impose other reasonable conditions.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Inadvertent Absence Is Not Grounds for Automatic Bail Cancellation
- Practitioners must argue that absence without malice, especially in cases with a history of compliance, cannot trigger forfeiture or warrants
- Courts must record reasons for cancellation and assess intent, not merely note non-appearance
- Applications for exemption from personal appearance must be adjudicated on merits, not summarily rejected
Proportionality Must Guide Bail Decisions Under BNSS
- Section 528 of BNSS does not empower courts to act on suspicion or convenience
- The burden lies on the prosecution to demonstrate likelihood of flight or interference with evidence
- Bail cancellation must be the last resort, not the first reaction
Undertakings Carry Legal Weight
- A clear, written undertaking to appear can be a sufficient substitute for custody where no threat is shown
- Courts should encourage cooperation over coercion
- Failure to appear must be evaluated contextually - not mechanically
