Repetitive Exemption Is No Ground To Cancel Bail - Bail Cancellation Is Not a Tool for Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Object of Bail Is to Secure Presence, Not to Punish”— Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside a trial court’s order cancelling bail of the petitioner and issuing non-bailable warrants merely for his absence on a non-substantive hearing date. Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor ruled that such an order was not only disproportionate but also violated settled principles governing the purpose and procedure of bail.

“Deprivation of Liberty Must Be Justified by Extraordinary Circumstances”—Court Reaffirms Procedural Safeguards in Bail Jurisprudence

The High Court took strong exception to the mechanical cancellation of bail and observed that the trial court had failed to record cogent reasons to justify such a drastic step. It emphasised that:

“Instead of cancelling the bail... the Court ought to have exempted his personal appearance with a direction to appear on the next date. The punitive order of cancellation of bail could thus have been avoided.”

The judgment reaffirmed that absence from one hearing—especially on a date fixed merely for reply filing and not for any substantial proceedings—does not per se imply deliberate evasion or abuse of liberty.

The petitioner, Dipesh Jain, resident of Mumbai, was facing trial in FIR No. 98 dated 03.11.2016 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of IPC registered at Police Station Cantt, Bathinda. He had been granted regular bail, and in view of his distance from the trial location, had previously been granted exemptions from personal appearance on some occasions.

On 05.05.2025, he had appeared in person, and the case was adjourned to 08.08.2025 for reply to his application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. (seeking discharge). However, when he again sought exemption on 08.08.2025, the trial court rejected his application, citing repeated absence (3 out of 6 dates), cancelled his bail, forfeited bonds, and issued non-bailable warrants.

“Bail Cancellation Requires Cogent Reasons and Cannot Be Based on Habitual Absence Alone”—Court Applies Binding Precedents

The Court placed reliance on a Co-ordinate Bench ruling in Sahib Singh @ Saab Singh v. State of Punjab [2025:NCPHHC:106708] which had held:

“Issuance of non-bailable warrants should not be exercised in a mechanical manner... Bail cancellation amounts to an unjustifiable restriction on procedural rights in absence of misconduct or deliberate evasion.”

Quoting this binding precedent, the Court reminded trial courts that the “object of bail is to secure presence of accused at trial and not to inflict punishment prior to conviction.”

It also referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in:

• Gurcharan Singh v. State (UT of Delhi), 1978 (1) SCC 118

• Sanjay Chander v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40

The principle culled from these decisions was that liberty cannot be curtailed mechanically, and courts must follow due process, especially where no prejudice is caused to trial progression.

“No Substantial Proceedings Were Scheduled on the Date of Absence”—Court Discards Inference of Wilful Default

The Court minutely examined the record and found that: “On that date, the case was fixed for filing of reply to the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C... No substantial proceedings were going to be conducted from which it could be inferred that the petitioner had wilfully absented himself.”

Justice Rathor further held that even if the accused had remained absent on three dates out of six, this alone could not warrant cancellation of bail, unless there was clear evidence of malafide or intent to obstruct justice.

The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the ACJM, Bathinda, and ruled: “The present petition is allowed and impugned order... is set aside. It is ordered that petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial court on his appearance within 15 days. In case he fails to appear within 15 days, the benefit of bail granted by way of this order shall come to an end.”

This ruling is a cautionary note to subordinate courts against punitive use of bail cancellation. It reinforces the constitutional value of personal liberty, reminding the judiciary that “bail is a matter of right—not a favour—unless its misuse is clearly demonstrated.”

By recognising the distinction between procedural non-compliance and deliberate defiance, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has strengthened the jurisprudential commitment to fair process and rational exercise of judicial discretion.

Date of Decision: 05.09.2025