Before cancelling bail or forfeiting bail bonds, the court must provide the accused an opportunity to explain their absence through a notice, as personal liberty is a fundamental right and such actions cannot be taken in a mechanical manner.

Order

1. The present Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed against the order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal No.15/2025 (CIS No.65/2025), whereby the learned appellate court forfeited the bail bonds of the petitioner, issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner and further directed initiation of proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner.

2. That the respondent No.2-complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, N.I. Act Cases No.3, Bikaner alleging that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.87,000/- from him for business purposes and, towards repayment thereof, issued cheque No.736601 dated 30.11.2018 for an amount of Rs.87,000/-, which upon presentation was dishonoured on account of “Funds Insufficient”. Despite repeated presentation of the cheque and service of statutory notice dated 14.02.2019, the payment was not made and consequently, the complaint came to be filed. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial court vide judgment dated 13.02.2025 convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to four months’ simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,35,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.15/2025 (CIS No.65/2025) before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Bikaner and the sentence of the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 15.03.2025 subject to deposit of Rs.27,000/- and furnishing of bail bonds and sureties, which conditions were duly complied with by the petitioner.

2.1 During pendency of the appeal, petitioner filed application seeking exemption from personal appearance. However, vide impugned order dated 15.11.2025, the learned appellate court declined the exemption application, forfeited the bail bonds of the petitioner, directed initiation of proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. and further issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside, as the petitioner has never intended to evade appearance and has been diligently filing applications for exemption on account of the complainant’s non-appearance and the consequent inability to effectively proceed towards an amicable settlement, despite the petitioner’s willingness to resolve the dispute. It is further submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside, and that the petitioner is ready and willing to face the proceedings; however, in the interest of justice, the warrants of arrest be converted into bailable warrants. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not flouted any directions issued by the learned courts below and, therefore, deserves an opportunity to pursue the appeal while remaining on bail.

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 or