The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that bail cancellation under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) requires proof of deliberate or wilful absence, not mere non-appearance due to compelling personal circumstances. This ruling restores balance between procedural compliance and humanitarian considerations in criminal proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Jaskaran Singh @ Lovely, was granted regular bail by this Court on 08.01.2021 in connection with FIR No. 283 dated 13.11.2020, registered at Police Station Sardulgarh, District Mansa, under Section 379 IPC (later amended to include Section 411 IPC). He appeared regularly before the trial court until March 2026.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was granted bail on 08.01.2021 and complied with all conditions thereafter.
- He failed to appear on 24.03.2026 and 06.04.2026 due to his wife’s critical pregnancy and hospitalization.
- His wife was admitted to Naveen Garg Memorial Hospital, Rampura Phool, District Bathinda, on 18.04.2026 and delivered on 21.04.2026.
- Medical records documenting the wife’s condition and hospitalization were submitted as Annexure P-11.
- No other family member was available to provide care during this period.
- The learned JMIC, Sardulgarh, cancelled the petitioner’s bail on 06.04.2026 (Annexure P-10) and issued non-bailable warrants, forfeiting his bail bonds.
Procedural History
- 13.11.2020: FIR No. 283 registered under Section 379 IPC at PS Sardulgarh.
- 08.01.2021: Petitioner granted regular bail by the High Court (Annexure P-2).
- 24.03.2026 & 06.04.2026: Petitioner failed to appear before trial court.
- 06.04.2026: JMIC, Sardulgarh, cancelled bail and issued non-bailable warrants (Annexure P-10).
- 07.05.2026: Petitioner filed Writ Petition under Section 528 BNSS before the High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the bail cancellation order dated 06.04.2026, restoration of his bail status, and an opportunity to surrender before the trial court without prejudice.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) permits cancellation of bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants solely on the ground of non-appearance, even when the absence is neither wilful nor deliberate, but due to a bona fide medical emergency.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel submitted that the petitioner’s non-appearance was not intentional or contumacious. He had appeared regularly since bail was granted in January 2021. The absence on two dates was due to his wife’s life-threatening pregnancy and subsequent delivery, with no alternative caregiver available. Medical records were produced to substantiate the claim. He expressed readiness to surrender immediately and comply with any conditions imposed. Reliance was placed on prior judgments of this Court in Major Singh v. State of Punjab, Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, and Raghav v. State of Punjab, where similar non-wilful absences led to setting aside of warrants.
For the Respondent
The State did not contest the factual basis of the petitioner’s absence. The learned Public Prosecutor conceded that the petitioner had a history of compliance and that the medical emergency was genuine. However, the State maintained that the trial court had acted within its powers under Section 528 BNSS to issue warrants for non-appearance, regardless of intent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that the purpose of issuing non-bailable warrants is not punitive but coercive - to secure the presence of the accused for trial. The Court observed that Section 528 BNSS must be interpreted in light of the principle of proportionality and the presumption of innocence.
"The very purpose of issuance of warrants of arrest, is to compel and secure the presence of the accused to face trial and establish the rule of law, as also to ensure finalization of the proceedings."
The Court noted that the petitioner had not evaded the process, nor had he ignored notices or court dates over an extended period. His absence was confined to two dates, both coinciding with a documented medical crisis in his immediate family. The Court distinguished this case from instances of deliberate evasion, where bail cancellation is justified.
The Court further relied on its own precedents in Major Singh, Surjit Singh, and Raghav, where bail cancellations were set aside for similar non-wilful absences. The Court held that denying the petitioner an opportunity to rejoin proceedings would serve no legitimate purpose and would instead delay the trial.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 06.04.2026 cancelling bail and issuing non-bailable warrants was set aside. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court on 07.05.2026 itself, subject to deposit of Rs. 5,000 as costs with the Chandi Kusht Ashram, Sector 47-B, Chandigarh. Upon furnishing bail bonds, the trial court was directed to release him on bail, subject to its satisfaction. The petitioner was also directed to file an undertaking by affidavit that he will appear on every hearing unless exempted, and shall not leave the country without prior permission. Any failure to comply shall result in the petition being deemed dismissed without further reference to this Court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Non-Willful Absence Is Not Ground for Automatic Bail Cancellation
- Practitioners must now argue that Section 528 BNSS requires proof of wilful or contumacious absence, not mere non-appearance.
- Medical emergencies, family crises, or documented unavoidable circumstances must be presented with corroborative evidence (hospital records, affidavits).
- Courts cannot apply Section 528 BNSS mechanically; the intent behind absence must be examined.
Courts Must Balance Procedural Rigor with Humanitarian Considerations
- Bail cancellation should be a last resort, not a default response to non-appearance.
- The burden is on the prosecution to demonstrate deliberate evasion; absence alone is insufficient.
- Petitioners should be given one opportunity to surrender and rejoin proceedings, especially where trial delay is not prejudicial.
Costs as a Proportionate Sanction
- The Court’s imposition of Rs. 5,000 as costs, rather than forfeiture of entire bonds, sets a precedent for proportionate penalties.
- This approach discourages non-appearance without imposing undue hardship on accused persons facing genuine emergencies.
Surrender Conditions Are Permissible and Preferable
- Courts may impose conditions such as undertaking to appear, no travel abroad, and periodic reporting.
- These conditions are preferable to re-arrest and promote compliance without violating personal liberty.
Documentary Evidence Prevails Over Presumptions
- Medical records submitted as Annexure P-11 were accepted without challenge, reinforcing that objective evidence overrides speculative assumptions of evasion.
- Practitioners should always submit contemporaneous, verifiable documentation to support claims of unavoidable absence.
