E-Paper
Resort to bail cancellation sparingly: Punjab & Haryana HC to trial courts
The petitioner, Ram Mehar, had sought quashing of July 23, 2024, and November 30, 2024, orders of a magistrate, whereby he was summoned through non-bailable warrants in an Excise Act case of July 2017.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has said that bail cancellation orders by trial courts to secure presence of an accused should be passed sparingly.
“In the considered opinion of this court, the cancellation of bail orders 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 bench of justice Sumeet Goel observed, while quashing orders of a Patiala court, wherein an accused on bail was sought to be presented through non-bailable warrants by a trial court.
The petitioner, Ram Mehar, had sought quashing of July 23, 2024, and November 30, 2024, orders of a magistrate, whereby he was summoned through non-bailable warrants in an Excise Act case of July 2017.
He had secured bail in 2017 and was regularly appearing before the court. However, in 2024, he went abroad. On his return, he was arrested in another criminal case registered in Kaithal, Haryana. Due to this, he could not appear before the court. He was later able to secure bail in this case in August 2025.
His counsel had submitted that the procedure adopted by the trial court in directly issuing the non-bailable warrants against the petitioner at the very first instance was contrary to criminal jurisprudence. The trial court had failed to issue any notice to the petitioner prior to resorting to the issuance of non-bailable warrants and hence, such an approach was arbitrary, untenable and contrary to the procedural safeguard enshrined under the law, his counsel had submitted.
Upon perusal of the record, the court found that the trial court, while cancelling the bail, straightaway proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants against the petitioner.
“The issuance of non-bailable warrants must not be exercised in a mechanical manner, and must be adopted sparingly and only upon the recording of cogent reasons, reflecting the necessity of adopting such a stringent course,” the high court said.
Allowing Mehar’s plea, the high court quashed the non-bailable warrants, observing that prime object of cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bail bonds was to secure the presence of the accused. When the accused was coming forward and ready to appear before the trial court on each and every date, his petition deserved to be allowed.
