Inadvertently noting an incorrect hearing date does not excuse prolonged inaction after bail cancellation.

The petitioner was facing proceedings arising from FIR No. 03 dated 03.01.2021, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Chhapar, District Yamuna Nagar; Section 29 of the NDPS Act was subsequently added in the final report.

He had previously been granted bail, but failed to appear before the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, resulting in cancellation of bail and issuance of warrants of arrest through order dated 21.05.2026.

The petitioner claimed that his absence was bona fide and inadvertent because he had wrongly noted 25.05.2026 as the date of hearing.

The matter was thereafter adjourned to 04.07.2026, 04.08.2026 and 24.08.2026, but the petitioner took no remedial steps and approached the High Court only on 21.08.2026.

The State opposed the petition on the ground that he ought to have promptly approached the Trial Court and explained his non-appearance.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the order cancelling the petitioner’s bail and issuing warrants of arrest?

Whether the petitioner’s explanation that he had inadvertently noted an incorrect hearing date constituted sufficient justification for his non-appearance and subsequent failure to take prompt remedial action?

Whether the impugned order suffered from patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or material infirmity warranting interference?

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.

The Court proceeded on the principle that a person who has failed to appear despite being on bail must provide a cogent explanation and take prompt steps before the Trial Court or the High Court; an alleged inadvertent noting of the wrong date, by itself, does not justify prolonged inaction.

Interference in inherent jurisdiction is warranted only where the impugned order discloses patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or material infirmity.

The Court held that even if the petitioner had mistakenly recorded 25.05.2026 as the hearing date, he was expected, upon expiry of that date, to ascertain the status of the case and promptly seek appropriate relief.

Instead, he remained inactive through several subsequent dates—04.07.2026, 04.08.2026 and 24.08.2026—and approached the High Court only on 21.08.2026.

This chronology demonstrated continued inaction rather than a solitary inadvertent mistake and materially weakened the bona fides of his explanation.

Since no compelling circumstance or convincing justification was shown, and the impugned order revealed no patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or material infirmity, the Court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the petitioner’s non-appearance and the consequential order and would not affect the merits of the criminal case.

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of accordingly.