Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Bonds under Section 91 of BNSS can be filed by a person only when he is present in the Court." Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling dated May 7, 2026, held that the physical presence of an accused is a mandatory prerequisite for furnishing bonds under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

A bench of Justice Surya Partap Singh observed that while the statute necessitates presence, the Trial Courts should not use this requirement to abruptly take an accused into custody if they were never arrested during the investigation. The Court emphasized that a "via media" must be adopted to balance statutory compliance with the liberty of the individual.

The petitioner, Narender Singh Vaid, was a Director/Controller in the SRS Group, which was under investigation by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) for a multi-crore fraud involving loans of over Rs. 1,500 crores. After the Special Court took cognizance of the SFIO complaint, the petitioner, who was never arrested during the investigation, sought to furnish bonds under Section 91 BNSS. However, the Trial Court dismissed his application on the grounds that he was not physically present in court and had been declared a proclaimed person.

The primary question before the court was whether an accused can furnish bonds under Section 91 of the BNSS (formerly Section 88 of the CrPC) through counsel without being physically present in court. The court was also called upon to determine if the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement apply to proceedings under the Companies Act, 2013.

Applicability of Tarsem Lal Guidelines to Companies Act

The Court began by noting that the principles governing complaint cases where an accused is not arrested during the investigation, as laid down in Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement, are fully applicable here. Justice Surya Partap Singh observed that since the provisions of the PMLA and the Companies Act are similar regarding the "twin conditions" for bail, the same procedural safeguards must apply to SFIO complaints.

Court Explains Statutory Mandate of Section 91 BNSS

Examining the language of the statute, the Court noted that Section 91 of the BNSS specifically empowers a presiding officer to require a bond only when the person "is present in such Court." The Court found that the text of the law is unambiguous regarding the necessity of the person's physical appearance before the judicial officer.

"If the bare provision comprised under Section 91 of BNSS is taken into consideration, it transpires that the bonds under Section 91 of BNSS can be filed by a person only when he is present in the Court," the bench observed. Consequently, the Court held that the Trial Court committed no error in refusing to accept bonds in the petitioner's absence.

Addressing the Apprehension of Immediate Arrest

The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's "unfounded" but common apprehension that appearing to furnish bonds might lead to immediate incarceration. It noted that the anxiety behind non-appearance often stems from the fear that Trial Courts might reject the bond and take the person into custody despite the mandate of the Supreme Court in the Tarsem Lal case.

"The bonds under Section 91 of BNSS can be filed by a person only when he is present in the Court... while asking for the presence of the petitioner in the Court no illegality has been committed."

The "Via Media" for Balancing Compliance and Liberty

To resolve this impasse, the Court formulated a specific "via media" or middle path. It directed that the petitioner must appear before the Trial Court to move an application for recalling the arrest warrants and to furnish bonds. However, it added a protective layer to prevent the arbitrary deprivation of liberty during this process.

The Court ordered that if the Trial Court finds the bonds not in order or rejects the request for any reason, it should not immediately take the petitioner into custody. Instead, the Trial Court must fix a next date at least two weeks away, allowing the accused to avail of further legal remedies without being detained in the interim.

"The learned trial Court instead of taking the petitioner into custody, shall fix the next date beyond two weeks for appearance... This period may be utilized by the petitioner to avail legal remedy(s)."

Final Directions Regarding Proclamation Orders

Regarding the challenge to the order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person under Section 82 CrPC, the Court declined to interfere. It noted that the petitioner had repeatedly failed to appear despite summons and warrants. The Court held that the Special Court had no other option but to initiate proclamation proceedings given the petitioner's conduct in avoiding the process of law.

The High Court partly allowed the petition by setting aside the Trial Court's order dismissing the Section 91 BNSS application, but only to the extent of allowing the petitioner to appear and apply fresh. It mandated that the Trial Court must follow the Tarsem Lal dictum while ensuring the petitioner is given a two-week window for legal recourse if his bonds are not accepted upon his physical appearance.

Date of Decision: 07 May 2026