Regular bail granted despite one non-appearance after the applicant secured bail in subsequent prosecutions.

The applicant was arrested in Crime No. 131/2024 registered at Police Station Sarsiwan, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, for offences under Sections 420, 409, 406, 120-B and 34 IPC, Section 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositors’ Interests Act, Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and Sections 3 and 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.

He was earlier granted bail by the High Court in MCRC No. 8993 of 2024 on 11 March 2025 and thereafter regularly appeared before the trial Court. However, he remained absent on 9 January 2026, resulting in issuance of an arrest warrant; he was arrested on 3 April 2026 and his subsequent bail application was rejected by the trial Court.

The State alleged that, after being released on bail, the applicant had unlawfully withdrawn ₹10 lakh from a bank account placed on hold and had subsequently withdrawn ₹21,08,722 by allegedly forging the SHO’s signature, leading to registration of Crime Nos. 389/2025 and 390/2025.

The applicant submitted that his absence was confined to one date, undertook to appear before the trial Court, and informed the Court that he had already been granted bail in the subsequent crimes by orders dated 21 August 2026.

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the issuance of an arrest warrant for his non-appearance on one date before the trial Court?

Whether the allegations that the applicant misused the liberty of bail by allegedly withdrawing money and committing subsequent offences justified rejection of the second bail application?

The Court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the High Court’s power to grant regular bail.

It also considered the legal consequences of non-appearance before the trial Court and imposed conditions requiring the applicant’s presence, including personal appearance at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

The bail order further referred to the statutory consequences of continued absence or misuse of bail, including proceedings under Sections 269 and 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 84 BNSS.

The Court acknowledged that the applicant had failed to appear before the trial Court on the date fixed and that an arrest warrant had consequently been issued.

However, the applicant’s non-appearance was treated as an isolated instance, and he had undertaken to appear on all future dates and cooperate with the trial.

Although the State relied on the alleged post-bail withdrawals and registration of two subsequent crimes to contend that the applicant had misused bail, the Court noted that the applicant had subsequently been granted bail in both those cases by the High Court on 21 August 2026.

In these circumstances, the Court considered the case fit for grant of bail, while safeguarding the trial process through stringent conditions concerning appearance, non-seeking of adjournments when witnesses were present, and consequences for further misuse of liberty.

The applicant was required not to seek adjournments when witnesses were present, to remain present on every date either personally or through counsel, and to appear personally at the stages of opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of his statement under Section 351 BNSS.

The Court further directed that the trial Court could proceed in accordance with law if the applicant absented himself without sufficient cause or misused the liberty of bail.