Non-Appearance Of Accused Due to Miscommunication Not Grounds for Bail Forfeiture – Issue Notice Mandatory: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court held that the petitioner's absence from the court, caused by a miscommunication with his counsel, was not a valid reason for mechanically cancelling bail. The court emphasized that personal liberty must be protected, and such actions must not be taken lightly.
On 18 October 2024, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the forfeiture of bail bonds and the issuance of an arrest warrant against Dinesh @ Diniya in S.B. Criminal Misc (Pet.) No. 7095/2024. The court ruled that the trial court's actions in forfeiting the bail bonds and initiating proceedings against the surety under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were procedurally flawed. The petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity to explain his non-appearance, which was due to miscommunication with his counsel. As a result, the High Court restored the original bail bonds and quashed all related proceedings.

The petitioner, Dinesh @ Diniya, was facing trial under FIR No. 48/2015, registered at Police Station Dever, District Rajasmand, in connection with a criminal case before the Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Barmer. On 9 January 2024, the trial court forfeited the petitioner's bail bonds, issued an arrest warrant, and initiated proceedings against the surety under Section 446 CrPC after Dinesh failed to appear in court.

The petitioner contended that his non-appearance was due to miscommunication with his counsel, who failed to submit an application for exemption from appearance. He argued that he was outside the state for work and had no intention of avoiding court proceedings, as evidenced by his prior compliance with court appearances.

Procedural Flaw in Forfeiture of Bail Bonds
The High Court found that the trial court erred by not allowing the petitioner an opportunity to explain his absence before forfeiting his bail bonds. Justice Arun Monga, presiding over the case, noted that before canceling bail, the court must provide the accused with a fair chance to justify their non-appearance. The mechanical cancellation of bail without considering the circumstances violated the principles of procedural fairness.
"Before passing such an order, the court is required to issue notice to the accused to afford him an opportunity to explain why the bail should not be canceled. Such a course was not adopted by the learned trial court, and on this ground alone, the forfeiture order deserves to be set aside."

Personal Liberty Must Be Protected
The Court emphasized the importance of protecting personal liberty, ruling that bail should not be canceled mechanically without considering valid reasons for the accused’s absence. Dinesh's failure to appear was explained as a genuine miscommunication with his counsel, not a deliberate act of non-compliance with court orders.

The Court cited the case of Mohammad Haras vs. State of Punjab, where the Supreme Court emphasized that:

"Matters of personal liberty ought not to be taken lightly and in such a mechanical manner as in this case."

In line with this principle, the High Court ruled that Dinesh’s bail bonds should be restored and the arrest warrant quashed.

Quashing of Proceedings Under Section 446 CrPC Against the Surety
In addition to quashing the arrest warrant and restoring bail, the High Court also addressed the procedural error in initiating Section 446 CrPC proceedings against Dinesh’s surety. Justice Monga stressed that the trial court had failed to follow the procedure for forfeiting the surety bond, which includes giving the surety an opportunity to show cause before any penalty can be imposed.

Citing the guidelines from Varinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2023), the Court outlined the procedural safeguards for sureties, emphasizing that:

"Forfeiture of the bond by itself does not amount to the imposition of a penalty. A specific order has to be passed for imposing a penalty, and adequate opportunity must be given to the surety to show cause why the penalty should not be imposed."

As the trial court did not follow this mandatory procedure, the High Court set aside the surety proceedings, restoring the original surety bond.

The Rajasthan High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order of the trial court. The forfeiture of bail bonds, the arrest warrant, and the proceedings against the surety under Section 446 CrPC were all set aside. The original bail bonds were restored, and the petitioner was ordered to continue with the trial as per the original bail conditions.

"The original bail bonds of the petitioner accused as well as bonds of his sureties are restored. The trial will proceed further in accordance with law."

This judgment reaffirms the importance of procedural fairness in criminal proceedings, especially in matters affecting personal liberty. The High Court's decision emphasized that bail cancellations and proceedings against sureties cannot be mechanically ordered and must comply with due process of law.
 

Decision Date: 18 October 2024