Issuing Non-Bailable Warrants at First Instance Without Notice Violates Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Order Cancelling Bail

“Liberty Cannot Be Jeopardized for Mere Absence on a Single Date — Courts Must Exercise Caution Before Resorting to Harsh Measures” - In a significant judgment Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the cancellation of bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants against an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, holding that mechanical issuance of such warrants without notice amounts to a violation of procedural fairness.

Justice Sumeet Goel, while setting aside the trial court’s order dated 11.10.2024, stressed: “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 Court restored the bail, subject to strict conditions to ensure future attendance.

The Case: Illness, Absence, and a Mechanical Cancellation of Bail
The petitioner, Jaskaran Singh, was facing trial under Section 138 NI Act and had been diligently attending hearings after securing bail in July 2023. However, on October 11, 2024, due to a documented episode of mild diffuse encephalopathy, he failed to appear.
Without issuing prior notice or summoning explanation, the trial court cancelled his bail bonds and issued non-bailable warrants, also initiating proceedings under Sections 82/83 CrPC.

Terming this action unjustified, the High Court observed: “The mere non-appearance of the petitioner on one date, due to medical ailment, cannot be treated as a deliberate attempt to evade the judicial process.”
The Court found that no deliberate misconduct or malafide intention was attributed to the petitioner.

“Courts Must Not Sacrifice Liberty at the Altar of Routine Procedure”
In an important reaffirmation of constitutional values, Justice Goel invoked Article 21 and cited Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978) and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012), observing: “Deprivation of liberty must be considered punishment unless warranted for securing attendance at trial — mechanical detention is opposed to constitutional philosophy.”

The Court reiterated: “Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimized — restorative justice and constitutional compassion must guide bail jurisprudence.”
Thus, it concluded that issuance of non-bailable warrants at the very first instance without seeking explanation from an ailing accused was contrary to law.

Conditional Relief: Undertaking, Regular Appearance, and Costs Imposed
Allowing the petition, Justice Goel laid down conditions:
•    The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on the next date of hearing (09.06.2025) and furnish an undertaking to attend all future dates.
•    The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any.
•    A cost of ₹10,000 shall be deposited with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association as a condition precedent.

The Court clarified: “Failure to deposit the costs would result in automatic dismissal of the present petition without further reference to the Bench.”
The trial court was granted liberty to impose further conditions if necessary for the expeditious trial.

This judgment fortifies the principle that bail once granted cannot be lightly cancelled, and that personal liberty must be protected with intelligent care.
 

Justice Sumeet Goel delivered a resounding reminder: “Courts must act with reasoned caution — liberty is too precious to be trifled with, especially for mere procedural lapses when no deliberate evasion is shown.”
With the restoration of bail, subject to rigorous compliance, the High Court emphasized the humanistic and constitutional dimensions of criminal justice administration.

Date of Decision: April 16, 2025