A court must issue a notice to the accused to provide an opportunity to explain their non-appearance before cancelling bail or forfeiting bail bonds, as such actions significantly impact personal liberty and cannot be performed in a mechanical manner.

Order

06/05/2026

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C.) challenging the order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No. 16/2025, whereby the bail bonds of the petitioner have been forfeited, warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner, and directions have been issued for initiation of proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C.

2. The present case arises out of a complaint filed by respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act Cases No.3, Bikaner, alleging that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 8,50,000/- and issued cheque No. 736602 dated 21.12.2018, which was dishonoured twice due to insufficiency of funds, and despite issuance of legal notice dated 30.01.2019, the payment was not made, leading to conviction of the petitioner vide judgment dated 13.02.2025 and sentence of one year simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 13,00,000/-. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.16/2025 before the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Bikaner, wherein suspension of sentence was granted vide order dated 15.03.2025 subject to deposit of Rs. 2,60,000/- and furnishing of bail bonds, which were duly complied with, and exemption applications were also filed from time to time due to non-appearance of the complainant. However, vide impugned order dated 15.11.2025, the appellate court refused exemption, forfeited bail bonds, directed initiation of proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., and issued arrest warrant against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the continuation of the impugned proceedings amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law and deserves to be set aside. It is contended that the petitioner never intended to evade the process of law and had been regularly seeking exemption due to the non-appearance of the complainant, with no deliberate fault on his part. The petitioner is ready and willing to participate in the proceedings and face the trial in accordance with law. It is thus, prayed that the warrants of arrest be suitably modified into bailable warrants and the petitioner be permitted to pursue his remedy while remaining on bail, without being subjected to coercive action.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner had violated the conditions of the bail bond and therefore, the arrest warrant was rightly issued against him. Thus, the present petition holds no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. This Court has considered the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Tarun Upadhyay Vs. State of Rajasthan bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.7296/2024, wherein it was observed as under:-

“4. Reference may be had to a judgment in case title Mohammad Haras Vs. State of Punjab , (CRM-M No.31385/2023, decided on 07.07.2023) relevant whereof, for ready reference, is reproduced as below:-

“5. Heard.

6. No doubt, learned trial Court has got discretion to cancel the bail, however, it is well settled that before passing such an order, Court is required to issue notice to the accused so as to afford him an opportunity to explain as to why the bail should not be cancelled.