Continuous absence from court can justify issuance of non-bailable warrants and cancellation of bail bonds by the trial court.

ORDER

The petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 4 in CC No.102/2023 on the file of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha (Trial Court) which has originated from Crime No.374/2022 registered at North Police Station, Alappuzha, alleging the commission of offences punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 43 (e) r/w Section 66 of the Information Technology Act .

2. The petitioners have stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous case that they were arrested from Kanpur (UP) on 01.12.2022 and produced before the Trial Court on 04.12.2022. There is no evidence to substantiate the petitioner’s culpability in the crime. The petitioner desires to file a discharge petition. However, since the petitioners are natives of Kanpur (UP), they filed an application for personal exemption on 27.11.2025, on medical grounds. But, by Annexure-3 proceedings dated 27.11.2025, the Trial Court has dismissed the applications, cancelled the bail bond, issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the petitioners and issued notice to the sureties. Annexure-3 proceedings dated 27.11.2025 are palpably wrong and erroneous. Hence, Annexure-3 proceedings dated

27.11.2025 may be set aside. Hence the Criminal M.C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The petitioners’ principle grievance is that; although they filed an application for personal exemption on 27.11.2025, the Trial Court has rejected the application and issued Non-Bailable Warrant to the petitioners and notice to the sureties, and posted the case on 12.01.2026.

5. I have carefully gone through the proceeding sheet in the above case.

6. A reading of the proceeding sheet substantiates that the case was posted on 28.02.2024 for framing of charges. On 28.02.2024, the accused were absent and the case was adjourned to 23.04.2024 for framing of charge. The case was adjourned on two postings as there was no sitting. On 25.06.2024, all the accused were absent and the case was posted to 22.08.2024 for framing of charge as the last chance. However, on the subsequent date also, the accused were absent and the case was adjourned to 10.10.2024. On 10.10.2024, again all the accused were absent and the case was adjourned to 09.01.2025. On 09.01.2025 the accused were absent and the case was posted as last chance to 01.04.2025. On 01.04.2025, there was no sitting and the case was adjourned to 20.05.2025. On 20.05.2025, the 3^rd accused was present, but the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were absent and the case was adjourned to 12.08.2025 for framing of charge as the last chance. Again, on 12.08.2025 also, all the accused were absent and the case was adjourned for framing of charge as last chance to 22.09.2025. The same thing was repeated on 22.09.2025 and the case was again adjourned to 29.10.2025, which was again repeated on 29.10.2025, the case was posted to 27.11.2025. It is on 27.11.2025, again when the accused were absent that the Trial Court cancelled the bond, issued warrant to the accused and notice to the sureties.

7. The above sequence of events substantiates that the case was posted on seven postings for framing of charge as the last chance. But, the accused were continuously absent. It is this continuous absence, despite repeated directions, that led to the Trial Court cancelling the bond and issuing warrant to the petitioners and notice to their sureties. In light of the perpetual absence of the petitioners, I do not find any error or illegality in the Trial Court taking the extreme step of cancelling the bail bond, issuing warrant to the petitioners and notice to their sureties because the Trial Court was precluded from framing of charge in a case of the year 2023. The action