Ensuring Procedural Fairness in Bail Cancellation: Scope of Judicial Discretion and Rights of the Accused

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the decision in Jaskaran Singh v. State of Haryana & Another (2025 PHHC 050070), delivered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on April 16, 2025 (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel). The petitioner, Mr. Jaskaran Singh, was granted bail by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, in a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NACT/34878/2022). On October 11, 2024, the lower court cancelled his bail and issued non‑bailable warrants of arrest for repeated non‑appearance. The petitioner, who suffers from mild diffuse encephalopathy since 2021, challenged that order under Section 528 Cr.P.C., arguing that his absence was inadvertent and medically compelled, and that the bail cancellation was disproportionate, arbitrary and in breach of procedural safeguards.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court quashed the impugned order dated October 11, 2024, setting it aside. It restored the petitioner’s bail subject to conditions: appearance before the trial court on the next hearing date (June 9, 2025) and every subsequent date, surrender of passport (if any), deposit of costs of Rs. 10,000 with proof of payment, and any further conditions deemed fit by the trial court. Pending applications were disposed of. The Court held that bail cancellation and issuance of non‑bailable warrants without notice or reasoned order violated principles of fair process, especially given the petitioner’s medical condition and lack of any deliberate attempt to evade trial.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, A.P. (1978) 4 SCC 429: Emphasizes that deprivation of liberty by refusal of bail must be reasonable, informed by constitutional values under Articles 19 and 21, and tailored to community good. It outlines factors for granting or refusing bail, including liberty interests, community roots, and advancements in non‑custodial measures.
Gurcharan Singh v. State (UT of Delhi) (1978) 1 SCC 118: Identifies bail as a tool for securing the accused’s appearance without punitive or preventive motive. The judgment highlights that detention before conviction should be a last resort and that bail fosters preparation of defense, preserves human dignity and reduces state expense.
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40: Reiterates that bail cannot be denied on speculative grounds; detention prior to conviction is extraordinary. The Court must balance the rights of the accused, risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing, and ensure any restriction is necessary and proportionate.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The High Court’s reasoning unfolded along the following lines:

Due Process & Notice: The lower court issued non‑bailable warrants without issuing notice to the petitioner or recording cogent reasons. This contravened the requirement of giving the accused an opportunity to explain non‑appearance before revoking bail.
Medical Inadvertence: The petitioner’s absence stemmed from abnormal mild diffuse encephalopathy—an objectively verifiable medical condition—rather than a wilful evasion of the trial process.
Constitutional Values: Liberty under Article 21 cannot be curtailed except through a procedure that is fair, just and reasonable. Any mechanical or disproportionate exercise of bail cancellation undermines the presumption of innocence and the rehabilitative spirit of bail jurisprudence.
Judicial Discretion: While courts possess broad discretion in bail matters, it must be exercised in a holistic and humanistic manner, weighing individual and societal interests. Cancellation of bail is an extreme sanction that should be sparingly applied, primarily where the accused poses a real risk of absconding or tampering with evidence.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

This decision reinforces a protective framework for accused persons in bail revocation proceedings:

It mandates procedural fairness: lower courts must issue notice, consider bona fide explanations, and record reasons before cancelling bail.
It underscores the special consideration due to health‑related non‑appearances, preventing penalization for circumstances beyond the accused’s control.
It adds to the body of High Court rulings that emphasize proportionality and human dignity in pre‑trial detention, likely guiding future decisions in similar cases under the Criminal Procedure Code and other special statutes.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Bail: Security imposed by a court to secure an accused’s attendance at trial. It typically involves a bond and/or surety.
Non‑Bailable Warrant: A warrant for arrest that cannot be executed on the accused’s voluntary appearance; it signifies a heightened risk or default, but its issuance must be supported by due process.
Section 138 NI Act: Deals with dishonor of cheques and prescribes criminal liability, attracting complaints and summary trial procedures.
Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C.: Provide for proceedings against an absconding accused, including proclamation and attachment of property.
Section 528 Cr.P.C.: Empowers High Courts to call for records from inferior courts and to quash or alter orders in criminal proceedings.

5. Conclusion

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgment in Jaskaran Singh v. State of Haryana crystallizes the principle that bail, as a manifestation of personal liberty, cannot be revoked arbitrarily or mechanically. Courts must adhere to fair procedure—issuing notice, considering the accused’s explanations (including medical conditions), and recording clear reasons—before imposing the drastic measure of non‑bailable warrants. By restoring bail with tailored conditions, the Court balanced societal interest in securing the trial with the petitioner’s constitutional right to liberty and dignity. This decision affirms and advances bail jurisprudence, guiding future courts to exercise discretion with reasoned elaboration and compassion.