Punjab and Haryana High Court cracks down on bail jumpers, orders stringent action

Taking note of the increasing trend of accused persons failing to appear before trial courts after securing bail, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has framed a uniform approach to deal with such defaults. The court has asserted stringent action can be taken, including the imposition of costs in proportion to the accused person’s financial capacity, in cases where absence is found to be intentional and aimed at evading legal proceedings.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth asserted it had in a number of cases been experiencing situations where the accused stopped appearing before trial court in the criminal cases after being released on bail, compelling the court to issue non-bailable warrants by cancelling the bail already granted. In some cases, such accused were declared ‘proclaimed person/proclaimed offender’.

The bench added it had formulated and applied a uniform method after examining the facts from several cases by satisfying itself that “such accused would appear before the court concerned to enable it to proceed further, instead of delaying the proceedings to await the presence of accused”.

For streamlining the process and preventing unnecessary delays, the bench ruled that trial courts must assess each case individually to determine whether the absence was wilful or due to genuine reasons. Justice Vashisth asserted intentional or unintentional default of the accused could be dealt with by examining the facts from “case to case” he was involved in. “Where it is realised that absence or prolonged absence of such accused is intentional to evade the process of law, he/she can be penalised after examining the nature of crime in which he is facing the proceedings and thereupon by imposing some cost amount subject to his/her capacity to pay,” the court added.

Recognising the need to ensure compliance with legal procedures, Justice Vashisth asserted the primary object of every court was only to examine the commission of crime in question vis-à-vis the accused. “If possible justice be imparted at the earliest without unnecessary delay. It is not expected that undue time would be devoted in securing the presence of absconded accused and also to waste energy by enforcing the special mechanism to arrest such accused,” the court observed.