Bail cancellation for non-appearance may be conditionally set aside to secure surrender and expedite trial.

FIR No. 10 dated 25 October 2023 was registered at Police Station NRI, SBS Nagar, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983.

The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail on 26 June 2024, which was made absolute on 14 August 2024.

He appeared before the trial Court on 17 March 2025 and was directed to furnish bail bonds of ₹50,000 with one surety in the like amount; however, he did not furnish the surety bonds.

He thereafter appeared on some dates and repeatedly sought exemption from personal appearance, which was granted.

On 2 June 2026, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar, cancelled his bail, forfeited the bail bonds, and issued non-bailable warrants due to his non-appearance.

The petitioner attributed his absence to ill health, relied upon medical documents, and undertook to surrender before the trial Court and apply for bail.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning the inherent powers of the High Court.

The governing principle applied was that interference with an order cancelling bail would ordinarily not be warranted where the accused has repeatedly failed to appear before the trial Court.

However, the Court may mould relief to secure the accused’s presence and facilitate the progress of a stalled trial.

Where protection is granted, the accused must surrender within the stipulated period and seek bail before the trial Court; any subsequent absence may invite proceedings in accordance with law.

The Court also imposed costs in view of the petitioner’s conduct.

The Court noted that the petitioner had not furnished the required surety and had repeatedly sought exemption from personal appearance, ultimately resulting in cancellation of bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants.

It observed that, in the ordinary course, such conduct would not justify interference.

Nevertheless, the trial had remained at a standstill because of the petitioner’s absence, and his appearance would facilitate its progress.

Balancing these considerations, the Court set aside the impugned order but did not grant unconditional bail.

Instead, it required the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court within ten days and apply for bail, leaving the application to be decided expeditiously.

The petitioner was granted protection from arrest for ten days from 9 September 2026, subject to surrendering before the trial Court within that period and filing a bail application, which was to be decided expeditiously.

The trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law if the petitioner again absented himself.

In view of his conduct, costs of ₹50,000 were imposed, payable to the District Legal Services Authority, Rupnagar.