The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that the cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bail bonds cannot be automatic merely because an accused fails to appear in court, especially when the absence arises from bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural fairness must prevail over punitive expediency in criminal proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Vijay Kumar, a truck driver, was implicated in a drug offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, based on a secret information leading to the arrest of co-accused Surinder Singh and recovery of 9 grams of heroin. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, on 02.05.2020. Thereafter, he regularly appeared before the Special Court, Sangrur, following the filing of the challan on 28.05.2020.
Key Facts
- FIR No. 247 dated 05.11.2019 was registered against the petitioner and others
- Anticipatory bail granted on 02.05.2020
- Petitioner appeared before the Trial Court on all dates from May 2020 until February 2026
- On 21.02.2026, the petitioner failed to appear before the Special Court
- The petitioner was out of station due to trucking duties, a circumstance beyond his control
- His counsel also could not appear due to a Bar Association strike/protest call
- The Trial Court, on 21.02.2026, cancelled the petitioner’s bail, forfeited bail bonds and surety bonds, and issued non-bailable warrants
- Fresh non-bailable warrants were issued after the impugned order
- The case was next listed for 02.05.2026
- The petitioner undertook to appear on 02.05.2026 and sought quashing of the bail cancellation order under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Procedural History
- 05.11.2019: FIR No. 247 registered
- 02.05.2020: Anticipatory bail granted by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur
- 28.05.2020: Challan presented before Special Court, Sangrur
- 21.02.2026: Petitioner absent; Trial Court cancels bail, forfeits bonds, issues non-bailable warrants
- 17.04.2026: Writ petition filed under Section 528 BNSS before Punjab & Haryana High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 21.02.2026 cancelling bail and forfeiting bonds, and requested that the bail be restored on fresh undertaking, with direction to appear before the Trial Court on a specified date.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bail bonds under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is justified solely on the ground of an accused’s non-appearance, when such absence is due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances beyond his control.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the absence on 21.02.2026 was neither intentional nor deliberate. The petitioner, being a truck driver, was out of station on legitimate professional duties. Additionally, his counsel was prevented from appearing due to a Bar Association strike. The petitioner had consistently appeared before the court since 2020, demonstrating his willingness to cooperate. He offered a fresh undertaking to appear on the next date and requested restoration of bail on fresh bonds.
For the Respondent
The State opposed the petition, contending that repeated absences by accused persons in criminal cases have led to serious delays in trial. The State argued that the petitioner’s conduct, even if unintentional, set a dangerous precedent and that bail should not be restored without strict conditions. It emphasized the need to deter accused persons from exploiting procedural leniency.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the growing trend of accused persons absconding after being granted bail, which has burdened the criminal justice system. It cited its own earlier decisions in Ashish Kumar Honda @ Ashish Handa v. State of Punjab and Veena @ Veena Devi v. State of Punjab to affirm that courts must prioritize expeditious trial and avoid wasting judicial resources in tracking absconding accused.
"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."
However, the Court distinguished this case from those involving deliberate evasion. It noted that the petitioner had a clean record of compliance for nearly six years, and the non-appearance on 21.02.2026 was attributable to circumstances outside his control. The Court held that automatic forfeiture and cancellation without examining the nature of absence would violate the principle of proportionality and natural justice.
The Court emphasized that while courts must not tolerate deliberate delay, they must also not penalize inadvertent lapses without due inquiry. The petitioner’s conduct did not indicate an intent to evade justice. The Court further observed that the remedy under Section 528 BNSS is not merely punitive but corrective, allowing courts to restore fairness without resorting to extreme measures.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 21.02.2026 cancelling bail and forfeiting bonds was set aside to the extent of issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court on 08.05.2026 or within 15 days from the date of judgment. He shall furnish fresh bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate. He must also submit a sworn affidavit undertaking to appear on all future dates and not cause delay in proceedings.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Absence Must Be Evaluated Contextually
- Practitioners must now argue that a single instance of non-appearance, especially where the accused has a history of compliance, cannot trigger automatic bail cancellation
- Courts must distinguish between inadvertent absence due to genuine hardship and deliberate evasion
- Evidence of prior compliance, profession, and communication with counsel should be presented to support the claim of unavoidable circumstances
Procedural Fairness Over Punitive Expediency
- The judgment reinforces that Section 528 BNSS is not a tool for summary punishment but for ensuring trial continuity
- Courts must record reasons for cancellation, including whether the accused had notice, opportunity to explain, and whether lesser remedies (e.g., cost imposition) were considered
- Fresh bail bonds and undertakings, rather than forfeiture, should be the default remedy unless there is clear evidence of mala fide intent
Duty of Counsel and Court Coordination
- Bar association strikes or counsel’s unavailability cannot be imputed to the accused unless there is proof of negligence
- Courts should consider adjourning proceedings if both accused and counsel are unavoidably absent, rather than immediately issuing warrants
- Petitioners should file affidavits detailing the nature of unavoidable circumstances at the earliest opportunity
