Absence of Accused For Delivery of Judgment Despite Specific Court Direction Justifies Bail Cancellation and Issuance of NBW

The petitioner is an accused in a nine-year-old case, Complaint Case No. 879 of 2016, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Koderma.

The case was scheduled for judgment on 10.10.2025, and the petitioner was specifically directed to be physically present.

Upon his failure to appear, the CJM rejected his representation petition, cancelled his bail, and issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW).

The petitioner challenged this before the Sessions Judge, Koderma, in Criminal Revision No. 63 of 2025, which was dismissed on the grounds that the petitioner’s medical evidence (an outpatient slip for fever) did not justify defying a specific court order.

The petitioner subsequently moved the High Court seeking to quash the revisional order.

1. Whether the trial court and revisional court committed any illegality in cancelling the petitioner's bail and issuing non-bailable warrants for non-appearance on the day of judgment.

2. Whether the petitioner's age and health condition at the time of the scheduled judgment constituted "sufficient reason" for failing to comply with the court's direction for physical appearance.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.), which pertains to the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

The court applied the principle that a specific judicial direction for physical appearance, especially on the date of judgment in a long-pending matter, must be strictly adhered to unless prevented by substantial and documented cause.

The Court evaluated the petitioner’s justification for absence—being 61 years old and suffering from fever—against the procedural requirement of his presence for the delivery of judgment.

The Court noted that the outpatient door slip from Sadar Hospital presented by the petitioner was insufficient as it failed to record vital clinical data, such as body temperature, to prove a serious ailment.

The Court observed that the case was nine years old and the petitioner’s absence effectively frustrated the pronouncement of the judgment.

Consequently, the Court found that the CJM acted within its authority to ensure the presence of the accused for the conclusion of the trial, and the Sessions Judge rightly found no illegality in that exercise of discretion.

The Court concluded that neither the learned Sessions Judge nor the Chief Judicial Magistrate committed any illegality, as the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for defying a specific direction to appear in a long-pending case.

The orders cancelling the bail and issuing the non-bailable warrant were upheld.