Credibly explained non-appearance does not preclude bail when stringent conditions can secure attendance.

The petitioner, accused No. 6, was charged under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and Sections 7(A) and 25(1A) of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that he and others were found at night near a canal bridge with weapons and stones, and attempted to stop a vehicle; police apprehended the petitioner and three others.

After charge-sheet, the petitioner was granted bail on 4 March 2024 and appeared before the trial court, but later failed to attend after the case was transferred from Yadgir to Shorapur.

He relied on an FIR showing that he sustained injuries in a road accident on 3 February 2026.

The Sessions Court rejected his bail on 2 July 2026, citing his non-appearance and lack of cooperation in the trial.

He then sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Whether the petitioner’s failure to attend court, despite having previously been granted bail, justified denying him bail.

Whether bail should be granted subject to conditions addressing the risk of further non-appearance and interference with the proceedings.

The Court considered its bail jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS.

It applied the principle that “bail is rule and jail is an exception,” and that an accused should not be kept in pre-trial custody as punishment for the alleged offences.

The offences under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and Sections 7(A) and 25(1A) of the Arms Act were the charges in the pending case.

No precedent was cited.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s prior non-appearance and the trial court’s concern that his absence had delayed proceedings.

However, it accepted that the case transfer had contributed to his difficulty in obtaining hearing dates and found no reason at that stage to disbelieve the account of his road accident and injuries, supported by the FIR.

Given that he had previously been granted bail, the Court concluded that the concerns arising from his absence could be addressed by imposing stringent conditions rather than denying bail.

He was also directed to pay a penalty of ₹25,000 within four weeks, attend court as directed, assist in the trial, refrain from tampering with witnesses or hampering the proceedings, and commit no similar or other offence while the case is pending.

Breach of any bail condition would result in cancellation of bail.