IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO. 19050 OF 2025 MEENAKSHI …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The Order dated 14.11.2025 passed in CRM-M-56737 of 2025 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana adjourning the proceedings is under challenge. These proceedings relates to the dishonour of a cheque resulting in conviction of the appellant – accused which is now pending in appeal CRA No.956/2017 wherein the prayer for suspension of sentence initially granted and released on Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by BORRA LM VALLIbail which order though extended from time to time came to be rejected.

Date: 2026.01.16

17:06:09 IST Reason:

Hence, aforestated revision petition has been filed and it has been adjourned from time to time. Hence this appeal. While issuing notice to the respondents on 27.11.2025, this Court had passed the following order: -

“2. The order of the appellate court cancelling the bail and taking into custody petitioner-accused after issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW), which has been assailed before the High Court with a prayer of interim relief having not been considered by the High Court, petitioner has filed the present petition.

3. The genesis of this case relates to proceedings initiated by the second respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (NI Act) for the alleged return of the two cheques issued by the mother of the petitioner herein for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) and Rs.5,00,240/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Two Hundred Forty), which cheques came to be dishonored which culminated in conviction and sentence. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal has been preferred and the same is pending.

4. Though, this Court does not appreciate the conduct of the petitioner, inasmuch as her counsel having been changed on more than six occasions, this change in counsel seems to have triggered the appellate court to issue NBW against petitioner by cancelling the order of bail which had been granted on 10.10.2017.

5. The records would also disclose that the mother of the petitioner herein, namely, Ms. Mary Parashar, is said to have expired for which the death certificate was also produced. Interestingly, the appellate court seemed to have not accepted the death certificate and has directed the jurisdictional Station House Officer (SHO) to ascertain the correctness of the said statement and the certificate.

6. Be that as it may, the second appellant before the appellate court, namely, the petitioner herein had filed an application for exemption due to her health condition, namely, she was suffering from Herpes Zoster and the exemption application filed on 22.08.2025 came to be allowed and the matter stood adjourned to 04.09.2025 and by the time the first appellant/petitioner herein could reach, the matter had been called, the order of suspension and grant of bail was recalled and NBW issued. Later, on 20.09.2025, petitioner surrendered and sought for grant of bail. Without passing any order on said prayer, taking the petitioner into custody, the matter was adjourned to 23.09.2025 by the appellate court and on the said date, the application for bail came to be rejected.

7. Challenging the same, the petitioner had approached the jurisdictional High Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)/482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in CRM-

M-56737 of 2025. The said matter is said to be pending before the High Court and has stood adjourned from time to time due to paucity of time. On account of pendency of the appeal before Session Judge, petition/proceedings before High Court has also stood adjourned. Hence, petitioner is before this Court.

8. It is appalling and shocking to note that appellate court having insisted for appearance of the appellant on every date of hearing particularly in the backdrop of the