Issuing NBWs over single absence violates rights: HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that issuing non-bailable warrants (NBWs) against an accused who missed a single hearing despite regularly attending earlier proceedings amounts to an unjustified curtailment of procedural rights.
Court stresses NBWs must not be issued mechanically, especially when accused has a clean record.
Justice Sumeet Goel made the observation while setting aside a trial court order that cancelled the petitioner’s bail and issued NBWs after he failed to appear on October 11, 2024, reportedly due to illness.
“In the considered opinion of this court, this amounts to an unjustifiable restriction on the procedural rights of the petitioner in the absence of any misconduct, lack of bona fides, or a deliberate attempt to evade the proceedings on his behalf,” Justice Goel held.
He further stressed that the power to issue NBWs should not be exercised mechanically, noting, “It must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording cogent reasons that reflect the necessity of such a stringent course.”
The case pertains to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, involving a bounced cheque. The petitioner, granted bail earlier, had been consistently attending court hearings.
During arguments, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that his client never intended to avoid proceedings and was even willing to cooperate fully for speedy trial disposal. He also claimed that the complaint was false and that acquittal was likely.
Taking into account the petitioner’s prior attendance, willingness to face trial, and absence of any effort to influence prosecution evidence, the high court concluded that the cancellation of bail and issuance of NBWs were unwarranted.
“Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case… and there being no tangible material brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner to interfere with the prosecution evidence; this court is of the considered opinion that the petition in hand deserves to be allowed,” the Bench concluded.
