#non-appearance

The Kerala High Court ruled that an accused’s non-appearance due to essential, unavoidable business obligations abroad does not constitute wilful absconding, and trial courts must consider bail applications on the date of surrender. This sets a critical precedent for global professionals caught in India’s criminal justice system, affirming that procedural fairness must accommodate legitimate international economic responsibilities.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that dismissing a suit under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC is impermissible when counsel appears with a timely application for adjournment citing unavoidable circumstances like witness illness. This reinforces that procedural rigidity must yield to substantive justice, protecting litigants from harsh penalties for bona fide delays.

Madras High Court rules that mere failure to report at a police station does not justify bail cancellation under the SC/ST Act if the accused complies with trial court conditions. The judgment emphasizes that administrative reporting requirements cannot override judicial bail orders, and prior criminal antecedents alone do not warrant revocation.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that dismissing a Section 138 NI Act complaint solely due to one instance of non-appearance violates judicial discretion under Section 279 BNSS. Courts must consider unavoidable circumstances and explore alternatives like adjournment or fresh notice before terminating proceedings, safeguarding complainants' right to pursue legitimate financial claims.