The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that the cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bonds cannot be automatic upon an accused’s absence, even in serious cases. The Court emphasized that genuine medical emergencies, supported by documentary evidence, must be evaluated before invoking punitive measures under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Arshdeep Singh, aged 22, was implicated in FIR No. 247 dated 27.08.2023, registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, under Sections 382, 384, 473, 148, 149 IPC (corresponding to Sections 307, 308(2), 341(2), 191(3), 190 of the BNS, 2023) and Sections 25(6) and 25(7) of the Arms Act, 1959. He was arrested and subsequently released on regular bail. He appeared before the Trial Court on all scheduled dates until September 2025.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was allegedly assaulted and threatened at Punjabi University, Patiala, in September 2025
- Following the incident, he suffered physical and psychological trauma and required medical treatment
- He underwent de-addiction treatment at Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, from 07.01.2026 to 03.02.2026
- A discharge slip (Annexure P-2) dated 03.02.2026 confirms his hospitalization and ongoing medical condition
- He was unable to appear before the Trial Court on dates falling within this period
- The Trial Court, without affording him a hearing, cancelled his bail on 21.01.2026 and issued non-bailable warrants
- The petitioner was not declared a proclaimed offender prior to the bail cancellation
Procedural History
- 27.08.2023: FIR No. 247 registered at PS Zirakpur
- 2025: Petitioner released on regular bail after arrest
- September 2025: Alleged assault and threat at Punjabi University, Patiala
- 07.01.2026: Admitted to Government Medical College, Patiala for de-addiction and trauma treatment
- 03.02.2026: Discharged from hospital with medical documentation
- 21.01.2026: Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, cancelled bail and forfeited bonds without hearing
- 17.04.2026: Writ petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the bail cancellation order dated 21.01.2026, restoration of his bail status, and direction to the Trial Court to permit his re-appearance without prejudice.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 permits automatic cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bonds upon an accused’s absence, without evaluating the genuineness of the reason for non-appearance and without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel submitted that the petitioner’s absence was neither intentional nor contumacious, but arose from a bona fide medical emergency supported by hospital records. He relied on the principle of natural justice, arguing that the Trial Court violated Article 21 by cancelling bail without notice or hearing. Counsel emphasized that the petitioner was ready to resume proceedings and had no history of evasion.
For the Respondent
The State opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner’s conduct reflected a pattern of non-appearance common in criminal cases, and that granting relief would encourage delay tactics. The State argued that bail is a privilege, not a right, and that repeated absences, regardless of cause, warrant forfeiture to maintain judicial discipline.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the growing problem of accused persons absconding after being granted bail, which delays trials and burdens the system. However, it distinguished between deliberate evasion and genuine incapacity. The Court cited its own precedent in Ashish Kumar Honda @ Ashish Handa v. State of Punjab and Veena @ Veena Devi v. State of Punjab, where it held that courts must balance the need for expeditious trials with the rights of the accused.
"The paramount consideration of the Court is to secure presence of accused on each and every date for speeding up the trial for its final conclusion. Already Courts are flooded with so much litigation, resulting in slow pace of work, because of more than one reason. The required energy and manpower be used for expediting the proceedings of the Court, instead of running after the accused persons to get hold of them."
The Court found that the petitioner had provided credible medical documentation, had no prior history of non-appearance, and had not attempted to evade the process. The Trial Court’s failure to consider the discharge slip or afford a hearing rendered the order procedurally flawed. The Court held that bail cancellation under Section 528 requires a case-specific inquiry into the cause of absence, and cannot be triggered mechanically.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court set aside the bail cancellation order dated 21.01.2026 to the extent of issuance of non-bailable warrants. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 08.05.2026 or within 15 days from 17.04.2026. He must furnish fresh bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate. He shall submit a sworn undertaking to appear in all future proceedings. The petitioner shall deposit Rs. 10,000 as costs in an Old Age Home designated by the Trial Court, within two weeks. Failure to deposit costs shall nullify this order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Medical Absence Cannot Be Presumed as Evasion
- Practitioners must now submit credible medical records (discharge slips, doctor’s certificates, hospital records) to substantiate absence due to illness
- Courts cannot presume bad faith merely because an accused missed a hearing
- The burden shifts to the State to prove intentional evasion if the accused provides prima facie medical evidence
Procedural Fairness in Bail Cancellation Is Mandatory
- No bail cancellation order under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 can be passed without notice and hearing
- The accused must be given an opportunity to explain absence before bonds are forfeited
- Automatic cancellation without inquiry violates Article 21 and the principles of natural justice
Costs as a Deterrent, Not Punishment
- Courts may impose nominal costs (e.g., Rs. 10,000) to discourage frivolous absences
- Costs must be directed to a public cause, not the State treasury, to avoid punitive overreach
- Non-payment of costs within the stipulated time (here, two weeks) must be explicitly stated as a condition for the order’s validity
