Non-bailable warrants for missing hearing unjustifiable curtailment of procedural rights: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the mechanical issuance of non-bailable warrants against an accused, who missed a court hearing after consistently attending proceedings post-bail, amounts to an unjustifiable restriction on his procedural rights.

The ruling came in a case where the petitioner, granted bail earlier, had been regularly appearing before the trial court but failed to attend proceedings on October 11, 2024, due to illness. The trial court nonetheless issued non-bailable warrants against him and cancelled his bail.

Setting aside the order, Justice Sumeet Goel of the High Court observed: “In the considered opinion of this Court, this amounts to an unjustifiable restriction on the procedural rights of the petitioner in the absence of any misconduct, lack of bona fides, or a deliberate attempt to evade the proceedings on his behalf.”

Justice Goel added that the power to issue non-bailable warrants must not be exercised mechanically. “It must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording cogent reasons that reflect the necessity of such a stringent course.”

The case has its genesis in a cheque bounce complaint, where the petitioner was facing trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The matter was placed before Justice Goel after the accused filed a plea seeking the quashing of the trial court’s order dated October 11, 2024, whereby the bail was cancelled and arrest warrants were issued.

Appearing before Justice Goel’s Bench, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused was likely to be acquitted as the complaint was false. He further contended that the petitioner-accused never attempted to evade proceedings and had, in fact, expressed willingness to cooperate for expeditious disposal of the trial.

Taking into account the consistent presence of the petitioner during prior proceedings, his readiness to appear on each date as per law, and absence of any material indicating the possibility of interference with prosecution evidence, the High Court concluded that the cancellation of bail and issuance of warrants was unwarranted.

“Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case… and there being no tangible material brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner to interfere with the prosecution evidence; this Court is the considered opinion that the petition in hand deserves to be allowed,” Justice Goel concluded.

Punjab