No Straight to NBWs: P&H High Court Sets Aside Proclamation & Warrants, Reinforces Due Process in Bail Cancellation

Case Name: Rahul v. State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 18 March 2026

Citation: CRM-M-14451-2026

Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that cancellation of bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants cannot be done mechanically without affording the accused an opportunity to explain non-appearance. Such coercive steps must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording cogent reasons, keeping in view the fundamental right to personal liberty.

Summary: The petitioner challenged orders of the trial Court issuing non-bailable warrants and initiating proclamation proceedings after he failed to appear on a single date, allegedly due to ill health. It was contended that he had been regularly appearing earlier and his absence was neither willful nor deliberate.

The petitioner argued that the trial Court acted arbitrarily by directly issuing non-bailable warrants at the first instance without issuing prior notice or granting an opportunity to explain the absence. It was further submitted that the petitioner was willing to appear before the Court and cooperate in the proceedings.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had misused the concession of bail and failed to provide any plausible explanation for his absence.

The High Court examined the principles governing bail and personal liberty, referring to leading Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that deprivation of liberty must be reasonable and not punitive. The Court reiterated that the primary purpose of bail is to secure the presence of the accused and not to punish him before conviction.

On facts, the Court found that the trial Court had proceeded in a mechanical manner by cancelling bail and issuing non-bailable warrants without recording sufficient reasons or considering whether less coercive measures could secure the petitioner’s presence.

The Court held that such action amounted to an unjustified restriction on the petitioner’s procedural rights, especially in the absence of any material indicating deliberate evasion or misconduct.

Considering that the petitioner had expressed willingness to appear and cooperate with the trial, and there was no indication of tampering with evidence, the Court found it appropriate to intervene.

Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders issuing non-bailable warrants and proclamation, subject to the petitioner appearing before the trial Court and complying with conditions including payment of costs.