After Accident-Hospitalisation Plea, P&H HC Gives Accused One Final Chance To Regain Bail, Subject To ₹30,000 Costs

The petitioner, who had been granted regular bail in a case arising from FIR No. 350 dated 29 May 2024, was absent before the trial court on 16 March 2026.

The trial court cancelled his bail, forfeited his bail and surety bonds, and issued non-bailable warrants; consequential orders followed on 6 July and 17 October 2026.

The petitioner said his absence was due to an accident and hospitalisation, and that an exemption application was moved on his behalf on the same day. He sought to set aside the orders and undertook to resume participation in the trial.

The State opposed the petition, maintaining that the trial court was justified in securing his presence.

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was invoked as the basis for the petition.

The Court applied the principle that non-bailable warrants are coercive measures affecting personal liberty and should not be issued mechanically; summons or bailable warrants should ordinarily be preferred where sufficient to secure an accused’s attendance.

It relied on Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1, and Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 INSC 363, which require the discretion to issue non-bailable warrants to be exercised judiciously, having regard to the accused’s conduct, the availability of less coercive measures and the need to secure attendance.

The Court also treated bail cancellation and bond forfeiture as serious consequences that should not follow mechanically from a single absence, while recognising the accused’s obligation to comply with bail conditions and attend proceedings.

The petitioner’s prior grant of regular bail and asserted attendance during earlier proceedings, together with his explanation that an accident and hospitalisation prevented his appearance, weighed against maintaining the coercive measures without giving him a further opportunity.

The Court nevertheless noted that the exemption application was made only after non-bailable warrants had issued and that the petitioner remained absent thereafter, including despite fresh warrants; it therefore did not treat his conduct as justified or condoned.

Balancing the medical circumstances against his lack of diligence, the Court found that one final opportunity, subject to substantial costs and conditions securing future attendance, would serve the ends of justice.

The relief was conditional on payment of ₹30,000 to the concerned District Legal Services Authority within seven days of receiving the order. The petitioner was directed to appear before the trial court within ten days, file an appropriate application and furnish fresh bail and surety bonds; the trial court may impose conditions to secure his regular attendance. He was protected from arrest for ten days from receipt of the order, but failure to comply would disentitle him from its benefit.