Courts should ordinarily issue summons and bailable warrants before non-bailable warrants, supporting bail upon subsequent appearance.

The applicants were arrested in connection with Crime No. 64/2025 registered at Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh, for offences under Sections 296, 331(6), 324(2), 115(2) and 105 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The prosecution alleged that the applicants and other co-accused assaulted the complainant, following which the complainant’s father intervened, fell during the scuffle and subsequently died.

The post-mortem report recorded cardio-respiratory failure as the cause of death and found no external injury on the deceased’s body.

The applicants had previously been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in MCRC Nos. 3045/2025 and 3311/2025 by orders dated 4 July 2025 and 30 June 2025, respectively.

They allegedly failed to appear before the trial Court on 1, 3 and 4 August 2026.

Although their counsel appeared and sought exemption from personal appearance under Section 355 of the BNSS, the application was rejected and non-bailable warrants were issued.

The applicants thereafter appeared before the trial Court on 22 August 2026 and were taken into judicial custody.

Their application for cancellation of the warrants and release on bail was dismissed by the trial Court on 24 August 2026, leading to the present second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS.

Whether the applicants, who had previously been granted bail but subsequently failed to appear before the trial Court on three dates, were entitled to release on bail after appearing pursuant to non-bailable warrants?

Whether the issuance of non-bailable warrants, without following the ordinarily graduated procedure of summons followed by bailable warrant and then non-bailable warrant, justified reconsideration of the applicants’ custody?

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the High Court to grant regular bail. Section 355 of the BNSS concerns exemption from personal appearance before the trial Court, while Section 72(2), read with Section 483, was invoked in relation to cancellation of the non-bailable warrants.

The Court relied on Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein the Supreme Court observed that courts should ordinarily adopt a graduated process for securing the appearance of an accused—first issuing summons, followed, where necessary, by a bailable warrant and thereafter a non-bailable warrant.

The Court also applied the established principle that prior grant of bail, continued cooperation with the trial and subsequent appearance pursuant to warrants are relevant considerations in determining whether continued custody is warranted.

The Court noted that the applicants had previously been granted bail and had regularly appeared before the trial Court, except on three occasions.

On those dates, their counsel remained present and moved an application seeking exemption from personal appearance, although the application was rejected and non-bailable warrants were immediately issued.

Applying the principle in Satender Kumar Antil, the Court considered that the ordinarily prescribed sequence for securing attendance had not been followed.

The applicants subsequently surrendered before the trial Court on 22 August 2026 and remained in judicial custody thereafter.

Considering their prior compliance with bail conditions, their subsequent appearance, the limited period of custody and the procedural safeguard emphasised by the Supreme Court, the Court held that continued detention was not necessary and that the applicants were entitled to bail.

It directed that the applicants be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 each with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.

The applicants were required to: (i) refrain from inducing, threatening or promising any person acquainted with the facts of the case; (ii) avoid conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; and (iii) appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until conclusion of the trial.