Non-Bailable Warrant Must Be Issued Only After Recording Reasons For Its Necessity: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that non-bailable warrants must be issued only upon recording of cogent reasons that reflect the necessity of such a stringent course.

The Court was considering a Petition under Section 528 of BNSS seeking quashing of an order whereby bail granted to the Petitioner was cancelled and he was summoned through Warrants of Arrest.

The bench of Justice Sumeet Goel observed, "However, the learned trial Court, straight away proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants against the petitioner. 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. The issuance of non-bailable warrants must not be exercised in a behalf. The issuance of non-bailable warrants must not be exercised in a mechanical manner. It must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording cogent reasons that reflect the necessity of such a stringent course."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Vimal Kumar Gupta.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Petitioner iterated that a false case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the Petitioner, in which he is likely to be acquitted. According to the Counsel, the Petitioner was granted bail by the Court in the said case and he diligently attended all the hearings. The Counsel further submitted that due to the medical condition of the Petitioner, he was unable to appear before the Court and could not even inform his Counsel, which led to the cancellation of his bail and issuance of warrants of arrest vide the impugned order.

Furthermore, the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. have also been initiated against the Petitioner. The Counsel also submitted that despite the absence of the Petitioner being unintentional and owing solely to the circumstances beyond his control, the Court, without considering the inadvertence, erroneously cancelled the bail bonds and surety bonds of the Petitioner. Consequently, warrants of arrest were issued against the Petitioner. The Counsel contended that the issuance of non-bailable warrants was harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when the Petitioner’s absence was purely inadvertent.

Reasoning By Court

The Court noted that it is a well well-established position of law, as reiterated by the Supreme Court, that the Courts are required to adhere to due process while ensuring the presence of the accused.

It referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 and Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012).

It thus stated that the issuance of the non-bailable warrants must not be exercised in a mechanical manner.

"Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case; especially the factum of the prime object of cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bail bonds being securing the presence of the accused, the petitioner-accused having come forward himself to face trial, willingness shown by the petitioner-accused to appear before the trial Court on each and every date in accordance with law, the petitioner having submitted that he shall cooperate for an expeditious culmination of the trial & 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," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly disposed of.

Cause Title: Jaskaran Singh vs. State of Haryana and another 2025:PHHC:050070

Click here to read/ download Order