The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently addressed the delicate balance between judicial strictness and compassionate discretion in cases of non-appearance before trial courts. In a significant ruling, the Court set aside an order declaring two petitioners as proclaimed offenders, recognizing that their absence was due to genuine medical and familial exigencies rather than willful evasion. The judgment underscores the importance of contextual assessment in procedural defaults and provides a nuanced approach to bail forfeiture and proclaimed offender declarations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Vaibhav Vohra and his brother, were accused in a complaint filed by M/s Cool Tech Engineers against M/s Pureca Laboratories before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Derabassi. The complaint, registered as NACT No. 80 of 2020 on 19.02.2020, led to proceedings where the petitioners were granted bail by the trial court. However, their subsequent non-appearance on multiple dates resulted in the forfeiture of their bail bonds and, ultimately, their declaration as proclaimed offenders.
Key Facts
- 19.02.2020: Complaint (NACT No. 80 of 2020) filed before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Derabassi
- Bail Grant: Petitioners were granted bail by the trial court
- 16.10.2024: Petitioner No. 1 could not appear due to a spinal cord medical emergency; an exemption application was moved and accepted
- Subsequent Dates: Petitioners could not appear on two consecutive dates due to ongoing medical exigencies
- 26.11.2025: Petitioners failed to appear for the last rites of the grandfather of petitioner No. 1’s wife; an exemption application was moved but not accepted
- Non-Bailable Warrants: Issued against the petitioners due to their non-appearance
- 20.02.2026: Petitioners declared proclaimed offenders by the trial court
- 23.02.2026: A connected complaint’s petition challenging a similar order was dismissed as withdrawn after the petitioners were declared proclaimed persons
- CRM-M-20487-2026: Present petition filed for quashing the proclaimed offender order dated 20.02.2026
Procedural History
- 19.02.2020: Complaint filed (NACT No. 80 of 2020)
- Bail Grant: Petitioners granted bail by the trial court
- 16.10.2024: Petitioner No. 1’s exemption application accepted due to medical exigency
- 26.11.2025: Petitioners’ exemption application for non-appearance rejected; bail bonds forfeited; non-bailable warrants issued
- 20.02.2026: Trial court declares petitioners as proclaimed offenders
- 23.02.2026: Connected petition dismissed as withdrawn
- CRM-M-20487-2026: Present petition filed before the High Court
- 30.04.2026: High Court disposes of the petition with directions
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners:
- Argued that their non-appearance was due to genuine exigencies: medical emergencies and familial obligations (last rites of a family member)
- Submitted that their absence was not intentional or willful
- Contended that they were ready and willing to join the proceedings and comply with bail conditions
- Highlighted that a similar order in a connected complaint was challenged but dismissed as withdrawn after the proclaimed offender declaration
For the Respondent-State:
- Opposed the petition, arguing that the trial court rightly declared the petitioners as proclaimed offenders due to their failure to appear on the fixed date
- Contended that the non-appearance warranted strict procedural consequences
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the impugned order dated 20.02.2026 declaring them as proclaimed offenders
- Protection from arrest and an opportunity to join the proceedings subject to bail compliance
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the declaration of the petitioners as proclaimed offenders under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was justified when their non-appearance before the trial court was due to genuine medical and familial exigencies rather than willful evasion.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- Relied on the principle that procedural defaults should not attract harsh consequences when the default is due to unavoidable circumstances
- Argued that the trial court failed to consider the medical and familial exigencies cited by the petitioners
- Contended that the petitioners were willing to comply with bail conditions and join the proceedings, demonstrating no intent to evade justice
- Highlighted that the trial court’s order was mechanically passed without applying judicial discretion
For the Respondent-State
- Contended that the trial court’s order was legally sound as the petitioners failed to appear on the scheduled date
- Argued that the CrPC does not provide exceptions for medical or familial exigencies in cases of non-appearance
- Submitted that the petitioners’ non-compliance with procedural requirements justified the proclaimed offender declaration
The Court's Analysis
The High Court examined the factual matrix and the legal principles governing the declaration of proclaimed offenders under Section 82 CrPC. The Court noted that the petitioners’ non-appearance was not willful but due to genuine exigencies, including a medical emergency and the last rites of a family member. The Court emphasized that judicial discretion must be exercised with a balance of strictness and compassion, particularly when the absence is not intentional.
"It is apparent that the petitioners could not appear before the learned trial Court on 26.11.2025 on account of the last rites of the grandfather of the wife of petitioner No.1. Consequently, the learned trial Court forfeited the bail/surety bonds of the petitioners and ordered their summoning through non-bailable warrants. Thereafter, the petitioners were declared proclaimed persons vide order dated 20.02.2026. Now the petitioners are keen to join the proceedings."
The Court observed that the trial court’s order lacked a nuanced assessment of the circumstances leading to the petitioners’ non-appearance. While procedural compliance is essential, the Court held that mechanical application of the law without considering the context could lead to unjust outcomes. The Court also noted that the petitioners were ready to comply with the bail conditions and join the proceedings, which weighed in favor of setting aside the impugned order.
The Verdict
The High Court allowed the petition in part and set aside the order dated 20.02.2026 declaring the petitioners as proclaimed offenders. The Court imposed the following conditions:
- The petitioners were directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 25,000 with the Sadhna Society for the Mentally Handicapped, Near Housing Board Chowk Raen Basera Building, Manimajra, Sector-13, Chandigarh, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order
- The petitioners were required to appear before the trial court and file an appropriate application along with the receipt of costs within 10 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order
- The trial court was directed to admit the petitioners to bail, subject to its satisfaction, and proceed with the trial as per law
- The petitioners were granted protection from arrest for a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order
- In case of non-compliance with the above directions, the impugned order would stand automatically revived, and the petition would be deemed dismissed
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Discretion Must Account for Context
This judgment reinforces the principle that courts must exercise discretion with a contextual understanding of the facts. While procedural compliance is critical, mechanical application of the law without considering genuine exigencies can lead to unjust outcomes. Practitioners should:
- Highlight the specific circumstances leading to non-appearance, such as medical emergencies or familial obligations
- Argue that the absence was not willful or intentional
- Demonstrate the accused’s willingness to comply with procedural requirements
Costs as a Condition for Relief
The Court’s imposition of costs as a condition for setting aside the proclaimed offender order signals a trend toward balancing relief with accountability. Practitioners should:
- Be prepared to address cost-related conditions in petitions seeking relief from procedural defaults
- Advise clients on the potential financial implications of such orders
Protection from Arrest as a Temporary Safeguard
The Court granted the petitioners protection from arrest for 10 days, providing a window to comply with the conditions. This underscores the importance of:
- Seeking temporary safeguards in petitions challenging procedural orders
- Ensuring timely compliance with court directions to avoid revival of adverse orders
- Understanding that such protections are contingent on strict adherence to conditions
