Bail cancellation for unjustified non-appearance warrants no interference absent exceptional circumstances.

The petitioner sought exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, to quash the order dated 04.06.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka. By that order, the petitioner’s bail was cancelled, her bail and surety bonds were forfeited, and non-bailable warrants and notice to the surety were issued. The proceedings arose from FIR No. 35 dated 29.03.2022, registered at Police Station City Jalalabad, District Fazilka, under Sections 379-B, 384, 389 and 120-B IPC, corresponding to Sections 303, 308(2), 308(6) and 61(2) BNS

The petitioner contended that she was falsely implicated, was not named in the FIR, had no specific role, and was subsequently nominated on the basis of a co-accused’s statement. She had been granted anticipatory bail on 15.04.2024 and had appeared before the Trial Court from 07.08.2024 to 23.04.2026, but remained absent on 04.06.2026, which she attributed to miscommunication regarding the hearing date and medical circumstances. The State opposed the petition, asserting that the absence was without sufficient cause and that the explanation was an afterthought

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to quash the Trial Court’s order cancelling the petitioner’s bail, forfeiting the bail/surety bonds, and issuing non-bailable warrants on account of her absence on 04.06.2026?

Whether the petitioner’s explanation of miscommunication and medical circumstances constituted an exceptional or sufficient ground warranting interference with the impugned order?

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS, corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the BNSS, prevent abuse of the process of the court, or secure the ends of justice

It also applied the principle that cancellation of bail and consequential steps, including forfeiture of bonds and issuance of warrants, may follow when an accused fails to appear before the Trial Court without sufficient justification; interference in inherent jurisdiction is warranted only where the impugned order suffers from illegality, perversity, jurisdictional infirmity, or exceptional circumstances

The Court held that the petitioner’s absence on 04.06.2026 was admitted and that the Trial Court had considered the circumstances before cancelling bail and taking consequential action in accordance with law

Although the petitioner relied on her prior appearances and attributed the absence to miscommunication and medical circumstances, the Court found that the explanation did not disclose any exceptional circumstance justifying interference under Section 528 BNSS. The Court therefore found no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned order

However, the Court clarified that dismissal of the petition would not prevent the petitioner from pursuing an appropriate remedy. She was directed to surrender before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, and was granted liberty to move an application for regular bail, which was to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of as infructuous