Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale disposed of an appeal concerning a cheque-dishonour conviction where the appellant-accused, despite suspension of sentence and bail, was repeatedly required to appear and later faced cancellation of bail and coercive steps. Flagging a practice stated to prevail in Haryana of insisting on an accused’s presence on every appellate or revisional date even after sentence suspension, the Court held such routine attendance is unwarranted and serves no purpose. It directed that the order be placed before the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for circulation to the district judiciary, continued the appellant’s bail until the pending appeal is decided, and asked for an expeditious disposal, preferably within three months.

The criminal appeal arose from proceedings initiated against the appellant–accused in connection with the dishonour of two cheques, which culminated in her conviction. Following the conviction, an appeal was preferred before the Sessions Court, where an order suspending the sentence was initially granted and the appellant was released on bail. This order was extended from time to time. Subsequently, the appellate court cancelled the suspension of sentence, issued a non-bailable warrant, and took the appellant into custody.

Also Read: AP Stamp Act | Agreement To Sell Attracts Stamp Duty Only If Followed By Delivery Of Possession: Supreme Court

The appellant challenged these developments by approaching the High Court, seeking relief against the cancellation of bail and issuance of the non-bailable warrant. However, the proceedings before the High Court were adjourned repeatedly without consideration of interim relief. In the meantime, the appellate court continued to insist on the personal presence of the appellant on every date of hearing despite the earlier suspension of sentence.

Aggrieved by the continued custody, the insistence on personal appearance, and the pendency of proceedings, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The dispute before the Court concerned the propriety of requiring an accused to remain personally present before the appellate or revisional court on every date of hearing after suspension of sentence and grant of bail, particularly when the appeal remained pending for a prolonged period.

The Supreme Court recorded strong disapproval of the approach adopted by the appellate court after suspension of sentence and grant of bail. The Bench observed: “It is appalling and shocking to note that appellate court having insisted for appearance of the appellant on every date of hearing particularly in the backdrop of the suspension of sentence already passed.”

The Court noted that the appellate court had viable judicial alternatives available and stated: “Prima facie the course open for the appellate court was to either appoint an amicus curiae and hear the appeal on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon or grant an opportunity to the concerned appellant-accused to make alternate arrangement if counsel was not assisting the Court.”

While acknowledging the prolonged pendency of the appeal, the Bench clarified that delay alone could not justify the procedure adopted, observing: “No doubt, the present appellate proceedings have been pending for more than eight years, which is not justifiable on any ground whatsoever. However, that by itself would not be a ground by which course adopted by the appellate court, could have been resorted to.”

Addressing the submission regarding the prevailing practice of requiring accused persons to remain present on every date of hearing even after grant of bail, the Court noted the underlying rationale placed by the State but proceeded to clarify the legal position. The Bench observed: “The Appellate Court or Revisional Court after being satisfied of the necessity to suspend the sentence would have exercised its power and granted the prayer for suspension of sentence and ordered for release of such appellant–accused on bail.”

The Court further recorded the practical realities of appellate proceedings and stated: “The appeal before the Appellate Court many a times would be pending for months or years together and many a times after being posted before the Court for hearing it would be adjourned for myriad reasons.”

In that context, the Bench categorically held: “To call upon the accused to be present on every date of hearing before the Revisional Court or the Appellate Court would be burdensome to such accused and same is not warranted at all and it would serve no purpose.”

Finally, the Court clarified the legal consequence in the event of dismissal of the appeal, observing: “In the event of appeal or revision being dismissed the consequences would automatically follow and the jurisdictional magistrate would be fully empowered to secure the presence of such accused in accordance with the provisions of the Act.”

The Supreme Court disposed of the criminal appeal with the following direction: “Hence, we are of the considered view that, directing the appellant – accused to be present before the Appellate Court or the Revisional Court would not be warranted particularly after an order for suspension of sentence has been passed and bail has been granted. With these observations, the Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.”

Also Read: Bar Associations Not “State” Under Article 12 As They Do Not Discharge Public Functions: Delhi High Court

“Let the copy of this order be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice, Punjab and Haryana High Court for being circulated to the District Judiciary through issuance of appropriate circular or as deemed fit by the Chief Justice. It is also made clear that bail granted to the appellant by this Court by Order dated 27.11.2025 would be in operation till disposal of the appeal CRA No.956/2017.”

“The appellant shall cooperate with the Appellate Court in disposal of the appeal expeditiously and preferably within three (3) months.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Dhruv Gautam, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Abhishek Tongar, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Lokesh Singhal, Senior Additional Advocate General; Mr. Madhav Singhal, Advocate; Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Abhay Nair, Advocate; Mr. Sarthak Srivastava, Advocate; Mr. Mayur Goyal, Advocate

Case Title: Meenakshi v. State of Haryana & Another
Case Title: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19050 of 2025
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Prasanna B. Varale