Punjab & Haryana HC: Bail Can’t Be Cancelled for Seeking Hearing Exemptions

Punjab & Haryana High Court: Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Just Because Accused Sought Exemption on Few Hearings Dates

Court Says Bail Cancellation Is Not a Punishment; Absence Must Be Wilful and With Intent to Hamper Trial

Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor Quashes Lower Court Order Cancelling Bail, Calls It Disproportionate

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 11, 2025:

The Punjab and Haryana High Court have ruled that bail cannot be cancelled merely because an accused seeks exemption from personal appearance on a few hearing dates. The court stressed that bail is meant to secure the presence of the accused during trial, not to punish them for occasional absences.

Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor, while quashing an order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, observed that cancellation of bail requires cogent reasons and must be based on deliberate misconduct or attempts to obstruct justice. The ruling is expected to provide clarity to trial courts on the limited grounds for bail cancellation.

The Case Background

The case involved Dipesh Jain, a Mumbai resident, who was facing trial in Bathinda under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:

Section 420 (Cheating)
Section 406 (Criminal breach of trust)
Sections 467, 468, 471 (Forgery and use of forged documents)
Section 120-B (Criminal conspiracy)

Jain had been granted bail earlier. However, on August 8, 2025, when the case was listed for filing of a reply to his application under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code (seeking discharge), he sought exemption from personal appearance.

The trial court rejected his request, noting that out of six hearing dates, he had sought exemption on three. The court treated this as habitual absenteeism, cancelled his bail, forfeited his bonds, and issued non-bailable warrants.

High Court’s Observations

Justice Rathor disagreed with the trial court’s approach and made several key observations:

📌 No Substantial Proceedings on That Date: The hearing on August 8 was only for filing a reply, not for substantive arguments or evidence. Hence, the accused’s absence could not be seen as an attempt to delay the trial.
📌 Exemption Is Not Absconding: Seeking exemption on three out of six dates does not amount to wilful absenteeism. The accused had appeared in May 2025, showing his willingness to cooperate.
📌 Bail Cancellation Requires Cogent Reasons: Bail can only be cancelled if the court records satisfaction that the accused deliberately absented himself to obstruct justice. Mere absence is not enough.
📌 Alternative to Cancellation: Instead of cancelling bail, the trial court could have exempted the accused’s appearance with a direction to be present on the next substantive date.

The High Court concluded that the trial court’s order was punitive and disproportionate.

The Court’s Ruling

The High Court quashed the trial court’s order and restored Jain’s bail. It directed that:

The accused must appear before the trial court within 15 days.
If he fails to appear, the benefit of bail will automatically lapse.

This balanced approach ensured that the accused’s liberty was protected while also safeguarding the trial’s progress.

Broader Legal Context

The ruling is consistent with established principles of bail jurisprudence:

Object of Bail: The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the purpose of bail is to secure the accused’s presence at trial, not to punish them before conviction.
Extraordinary Circumstances Needed: Bail cancellation requires extraordinary circumstances such as tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, or deliberate evasion.
Not a Tool for Discipline: Courts have emphasized that bail should not be cancelled mechanically for minor lapses.

In Gurcharan Singh v. State (UT of Delhi) (1978) and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012), the Supreme Court underscored that liberty cannot be curtailed without compelling reasons.

Similar Cases and Precedents

The Punjab and Haryana High Court have dealt with similar issues in recent months:

In Sahib Singh @ Saab Singh v. State of Punjab (2025), the court held that issuing non-bailable warrants should not be done mechanically and bail cancellation requires strong justification.
In another case reported by Hindustan Times (September 2025), Justice Sumeet Goel observed that bail cancellation orders must be passed sparingly and only when there is clear evidence of misconduct or deliberate evasion.

These rulings collectively reinforce the principle that bail is the rule, jail is the exception.

Reactions from the Legal Community

The judgment has been welcomed by lawyers and legal scholars:

Defence Lawyers: They argue that the ruling protects the rights of accused persons, especially those living far from the trial court.
Prosecution Concerns: Some prosecutors caution that repeated exemptions could still delay trials, and courts must balance liberty with efficiency.
Scholarly View: Legal experts note that the judgment strengthens procedural safeguards and prevents misuse of bail cancellation as a disciplinary tool.

Implications for Trial Courts

The ruling sends a clear message to trial courts:

Bail cancellation should not be used casually.
Judges must record specific reasons before cancelling bail.
Exemptions should be granted when no substantive proceedings are scheduled.
Non-bailable warrants should be issued only as a last resort.

This guidance is expected to reduce arbitrary bail cancellations and ensure consistency in judicial practice.

Human Angle: Distance and Practicality

The case also highlights the challenges faced by accused persons who live far from the trial court’s jurisdiction.

Jain, a Mumbai resident, had to travel to Bathinda for hearings.
On dates when no major proceedings were scheduled, seeking exemption was a practical necessity.
The High Court recognized this reality and emphasized that absence must be judged in context.

Conclusion

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling in Dipesh Jain v. State of Punjab is a significant reaffirmation of the principles of bail jurisprudence. By holding that bail cannot be cancelled merely for seeking exemption on a few dates, the court has protected the fundamental right to liberty while ensuring that trials are not hampered.

The judgment underscores that bail cancellation is not a tool for punishment. It must be reserved for cases of deliberate evasion or misconduct. For trial courts, the message is clear: balance efficiency with fairness and never forget that liberty is the cornerstone of justice.