NDPS Act | Unintentional Absence Not Ground for Bail Cancellation : Punjab & Haryana HC Reinforces Procedural Fairness

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently addressed a critical issue surrounding bail cancellation due to non-appearance in a trial under the NDPS Act. The judgment underscores that unintentional absence, even if resulting in procedural lapses, should not automatically lead to arrest, provided the accused is willing to comply with court directives and pay costs as a corrective measure.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioners, Hari Singh @ Haru and another, were accused in FIR No. 156 dated 29.09.2021 registered under Sections 15, 25, 61, and 85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana Rural. The FIR alleged offences related to drug trafficking and possession, though the judgment does not detail the specific allegations.

Key Facts

• The petitioners were granted bail during the trial proceedings.
• They failed to appear before the trial court on 14.01.2026 and 25.03.2026 due to what they claimed was a "communication gap" and circumstances beyond their control.
• The trial court, Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, passed an impugned order dated 25.03.2026 cancelling their bail bonds and issuing warrants of arrest.
• The petitioners contended that their absence was unintentional and sought restoration of bail.

Procedural History

• 29.09.2021: FIR registered under NDPS Act.
• Subsequent dates: Petitioners granted bail and appeared before the trial court.
• 14.01.2026: Petitioners failed to appear.
• 25.03.2026: Petitioners again failed to appear; trial court cancelled bail bonds and issued arrest warrants.
• CRM-M-20447-2026: Present petition filed before the High Court seeking setting aside of the impugned order.

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioners

• Argued that the absence was unintentional and due to circumstances beyond their control.
• Submitted that they were ready to appear before the trial court and comply with any conditions imposed by the High Court.
• Contended that the trial court erred in cancelling bail without considering the unintentional nature of their absence.

For the Respondent (State)

• Opposed the petition, arguing that the trial court rightly cancelled bail as the petitioners intentionally failed to appear.
• Submitted that non-appearance on scheduled dates warranted strict action under the NDPS Act.

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought:

• Setting aside of the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
• Restoration of their bail bonds.
• Protection from arrest pending compliance with court directions.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the High Court was whether bail bonds can be cancelled and arrest warrants issued solely on the ground of non-appearance, without considering whether the absence was intentional or due to circumstances beyond the accused's control. Additionally, the Court had to determine the appropriate remedy where the accused expresses willingness to comply with trial proceedings.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

• Unintentional Absence: The petitioners' counsel argued that the absence was not deliberate but due to a "communication gap" and circumstances beyond their control. They emphasized that the petitioners were ready to appear and comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.
• Procedural Fairness: Contended that the trial court failed to consider the unintentional nature of the absence before cancelling bail, which was a disproportionate response.

For the Respondent

• Intentional Non-Compliance: The State, represented by the Deputy Advocate General (DAG), argued that the trial court rightly cancelled bail as the petitioners intentionally failed to appear on the scheduled dates. The DAG submitted that such non-compliance warranted strict action under the NDPS Act.

The Court's Analysis

The High Court adopted a pragmatic approach, balancing the need for procedural compliance with the rights of the accused. Key observations and reasoning include:

1. No Inquiry into Intent: The Court noted that the trial court did not inquire into whether the petitioners' absence was intentional or unintentional. The impugned order was passed solely on the ground of non-appearance, without considering the circumstances.

2. Willingness to Comply: The Court observed that the petitioners expressed readiness to appear before the trial court and comply with its directions. This willingness was a critical factor in the Court's decision to set aside the impugned order.

3. Costs as Corrective Measure: Instead of upholding the cancellation of bail, the Court directed the petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 each to the Sadhna Society for Mentally Handicapped. This approach served as a corrective measure, ensuring accountability while avoiding harsh consequences like arrest.

4. Protection from Arrest: The Court granted the petitioners protection from arrest for ten days from the date of receipt of the order, allowing them to appear before the trial court and file an application for restoration of bail.

5. Discretion of Trial Court: The Court clarified that the trial court was free to impose any conditions it deemed fit while admitting the petitioners to bail, ensuring that the trial proceedings could continue without undue disruption.

"The Court without going into the authenticity of the ground taken for the absence of the petitioners, deems it appropriate to direct the petitioners to appear before the Court concerned and to face the trial in the present case. In these circumstances, when the petitioners are ready to join the trial and face the proceedings, the order dated 25.03.2026, is set aside, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- each to be paid to the Sadhna Society for Mentally Handicapped."

The Verdict

The High Court allowed the petition in part, setting aside the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. The Court directed:

• The petitioners to appear before the trial court within ten days from the date of receipt of the order.
• The petitioners to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 each to the Sadhna Society for Mentally Handicapped upon appearance.
• The trial court to restore bail upon compliance with the above conditions and impose any additional conditions it deems fit.
• The petitioners were granted protection from arrest for ten days from the date of receipt of the order to facilitate compliance.

The Court cautioned that failure to comply with these directions would result in the impugned order being reinstated, and the petition would be deemed dismissed.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Non-Appearance Does Not Automatically Justify Arrest

• Procedural Fairness: Courts must consider the intent behind non-appearance before taking drastic steps like cancelling bail or issuing arrest warrants. Unintentional absence, due to genuine reasons, should not attract harsh penalties without inquiry.
• Balancing Act: The judgment highlights the need to balance procedural compliance with the rights of the accused. While non-appearance disrupts judicial proceedings, automatic cancellation of bail may not always be the appropriate remedy.

Costs as an Effective Deterrent

• Alternative to Arrest: The Court's direction to pay costs serves as a deterrent against future non-compliance while avoiding the harsh consequence of arrest. This approach ensures accountability without unduly penalizing the accused.
• Charitable Contributions: Directing costs to a charitable organization, such as the Sadhna Society for Mentally Handicapped, aligns with the broader objective of restorative justice and social responsibility.

Compliance Timelines Are Non-Negotiable

• Strict Deadlines: The Court set a ten-day deadline for the petitioners to appear before the trial court and comply with its directions. This underscores the importance of adhering to timelines set by courts.
• Consequences of Non-Compliance: The judgment explicitly states that failure to comply would result in the reinstatement of the impugned order, emphasizing the seriousness of court directives.

Practitioners should note that while courts may adopt a lenient approach in cases of unintentional non-compliance, strict adherence to procedural timelines remains critical. This judgment provides a precedent for arguing against automatic cancellation of bail in cases where absence is not deliberate.