Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sumeet Goel set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, which had cancelled the bail of the petitioner and issued non-bailable warrants against him. The Court directed that the petitioner’s bail be reinstated subject to conditions, and held that issuance of non-bailable warrants must be done sparingly and with cogent reasons.

The petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking quashing of an order dated 11.10.2024 issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram. Through this impugned order, the trial court had cancelled the petitioner’s bail and issued non-bailable warrants in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Also Read: “The Suit Discloses Triable Issues and Cannot Be Rejected at the Threshold”: Supreme Court Lays Down Twin Test to Resolve Copyright–Design Conflict Under Section 15(2)

The petitioner had earlier been granted bail on 18.07.2023 and had reportedly been attending court proceedings regularly. On 11.10.2024, however, the petitioner failed to appear before the trial court. His counsel submitted that this absence was unintentional and attributable to the petitioner’s medical condition—abnormal mild diffuse encephalopathy, diagnosed since 2021—which affects his cognitive and physical functioning. Relevant medical documents were annexed to the petition.

Due to the petitioner’s failure to appear, the trial court proceeded to cancel his bail and surety bonds and issued warrants of arrest. Further proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also initiated against him.

The petitioner contended that his absence was neither deliberate nor an attempt to evade the judicial process. His counsel asserted that the petitioner had no intention of absconding and was willing to cooperate with the proceedings fully. It was further submitted that the trial court, without issuing any prior notice or considering the medical condition of the petitioner, directly resorted to issuing non-bailable warrants, which was contrary to established legal principles and judicial discretion.

Referring to precedent, counsel asserted that the issuance of non-bailable warrants should follow due process and should not be exercised mechanically, particularly in the absence of mala fide intent or risk of abscondence. The petitioner also undertook to appear before the trial court on all subsequent dates and to cooperate fully with the trial process.

The petitioner prayed for quashing the impugned order and requested the court to restore the bail previously granted. It was also submitted that the order under challenge imposes an unjustified restriction on the procedural rights of the petitioner, in light of his medical incapacity and bona fide conduct throughout the proceedings.

The Court recorded that:

“The petitioner, after the grant of bail, was regularly appearing before the Court below. However, on 11.10.2024, the petitioner inadvertently failed to appear before the Court below on account of his ill health.”

The Court further stated:

“The learned trial Court, straightaway proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants against the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, this 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.”

Citing binding precedent, the Court referred to Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, where it was held:

“The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon.”

The Court also invoked Gurcharan Singh v. State (UT of Delhi) to note:

“Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case.”

The judgment stated that:

“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.”

Lastly, the Court recorded: “There is no tangible material brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner to interfere with the prosecution evidence.”

The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 11.10.2024, subject to the petitioner’s compliance with specific conditions. The Court directed that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 09.06.2025, the next date of hearing in the case, and furnish an undertaking to remain present on every date thereafter.

The petitioner was also directed to surrender his passport, if any, before the trial court. The Court clarified that the trial court would be at liberty to impose additional conditions as deemed appropriate based on the facts and circumstances.

Furthermore, the petitioner was directed to deposit a cost of Rs. 10,000 with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association. The Court made it clear that production of receipt or proof of such deposit before the trial court would be a condition precedent, and failure to comply would result in automatic dismissal of the petition without further reference to the bench.

“Pending application(s) ,if any ,stands disposed of”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate

Case Title: Jaskaran Singh v. State of Haryana and another

Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:050070

Case Number: CRM-M-20514-2025

Coram: Justice Sumeet Goel

[Read/Download order]