Cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bonds are legally sustainable when an accused fails to appear before the trial court without a valid exemption application and fails to provide a pressing or justified reason for such absence.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

This petition under Section 528 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 04.12.2025 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge Fazilka, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only.

The abovementioned order has been passed in a case arising out of FIR No.43 dated 12.05.2020, Police Station Vairoke, District Fazilka. In nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner is facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

As per the facts set out by the petitioner/accused, hereinafter being referred to as ‘petitioner’ only, in the abovementioned case, the benefit of anticipatory bail was accorded to him vide order dated 30.05.2020, and thereafter, the challan was filed and the trial commenced. According to petitioner, in the abovementioned trial a date, i.e. 04.12.2025, was fixed and on that day, due to sad demise of mother-in-law of his sister, he could not appear before the learned trial Court and on account of his absence, his bail has been cancelled and his bail bonds have been forfeited to the State. Hence, the present petition.

Heard.

The record has been perused carefully.

A perusal of record shows that in the present case, there is no dispute with regard to factual matrix of the present case. It is an admitted fact:-

i. that the petitioner is facing prosecution for the commission of abovementioned offence;

ii. that the petitioner was accorded the benefit of anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fazilka on 30.05.2020;

iii. that on 04.12.2025, the petitioner was not present before the learned trial Court;

iv. that no application seeking for exemption from personal appearance of the petitioner was moved; and

v. that due to absence of petitioner, the learned trial Court passed the following order:-

“An exemption application has been filed on behalf of accused Shiv Kumar and Kala Singh which is considered and allowed only for today for the reasons mentioned therein.

Accused Gurwinder Singh and Shinderpal Singh are absent without any intimation and nor any application for their exemption have been moved by their Advocate. As such, their absence seems to be intentional and willful, therefore, Court has left with no other alternate except to cancel their bail orders. Accordingly, bail orders of accused Gurwinder Singh and Shinderpal Singh shall stand cancelled. Consequently, their bail/surety bonds are also cancelled and forfeited to the State. Let, warrants of arrest of accused Gurwinder Singh and Shinderpal Singh be issued for 12.01.2026. Notices to their sureties be also issued for that date.”

A bare perusal of abovementioned order shows that on 04.12.2025, two co-accused of the petitioner, namely Shiv Kumar and Kala Singh, had filed application for exemption and the abovementioned application was allowed by the learned trial Court. Since the petitioner and his co-accused ‘Gurwinder Singh’ were not present before the learned trial Court on the abovementioned date, their bail was duly cancelled by the learned trial Court and their bonds were forfeited to the State.

In view of the fact that on the date fixed by the learned trial Court, neither the petitioner was present before the learned trial Court in compliance with the conditions enshrined in the bail order/bail bonds, nor any application for exemption was filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is hereby observed that the learned trial Court was left with no option, but to cancel the bail, forfeited the bonds of the petitioner and ensure his presence before the Court by issuing warrants of arrest.

With regard to above stand of the petitioner, it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner in the present petition has pleaded that due to sad demise of the mother-in-law of his sister, he could