Bail and Appellate Court Attendance Requirements

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale in the case of Meenakshi v. State of Haryana and Another (2026) held that directing appellant-accused to be present before appellate or revisional courts on every hearing date is not warranted, particularly after an order for suspension of sentence has been passed and bail has been granted.

What was the Background of Meenakshi v. State of Haryana and Another (2026) Case? 

• The case originated from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) for dishonor of two cheques issued by the appellant's mother for Rs. 7,00,000 and Rs. 5,00,240. 
• The cheques were dishonored, culminating in conviction and sentence against the accused. 
• An appeal (CRA No. 956/2017) was filed and remained pending before the appellate court. 
• The appellant was initially granted suspension of sentence and released on bail on October 10, 2017. 
• The bail order was extended from time to time but was eventually rejected and cancelled by the appellate court. 
• The appellant changed counsel on more than six occasions, which appeared to trigger the appellate court's adverse action. 
• The appellant's mother, Ms. Mary Parashar, allegedly expired, and a death certificate was produced, but the appellate court did not accept it and directed the jurisdictional SHO to verify its correctness. 
• The appellant filed an exemption application on August 22, 2025 due to health conditions (suffering from Herpes Zoster), which was allowed, and the matter was adjourned to September 4, 2025. 
• Before the appellant could reach court on the adjourned date, the matter was called, the suspension of sentence and bail order was recalled, and a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued. 
• On September 20, 2025, the appellant surrendered and sought bail, but without passing any order on the bail prayer, she was taken into custody. 
• The bail application was subsequently rejected on September 23, 2025. 
• The appellant approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Section 528 of BNSS/482 of CrPC in CRM-M-56737 of 2025, which was adjourned from time to time due to paucity of time. 
• The Supreme Court issued notice on November 27, 2025 and subsequently released the appellant.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court expressed that it was "appalling and shocking" that the appellate court insisted on the appellant's appearance on every date of hearing, particularly when suspension of sentence had already been passed. 
• The Court noted that the proper course for the appellate court would have been to either appoint an amicus curiae and hear the appeal on merits or grant an opportunity to the appellant to make alternate arrangements if counsel was not assisting. 
• The Court acknowledged that the appellate proceedings had been pending for more than eight years, which was "not justifiable on any ground whatsoever," but held that this alone would not justify the course adopted by the appellate court. 
• The Court recognized that in Haryana, the practice of requiring accused persons to be present before appellate courts on all hearing dates was prevalent, even after suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 
• This practice was based on Form No. 45 (Bond and Bail-Bond for attendance before Officer in Charge of Police Station or Court) found in Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
• The Court held that calling upon the accused to be present on every date of hearing before revisional or appellate courts would be burdensome to such accused and was not warranted at all, serving no purpose. 
• The Court emphasized that in the event of appeal or revision being dismissed, the consequences would automatically follow and the jurisdictional magistrate would be fully empowered to secure the presence of such accused in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 
• The Court directed that a copy of the order be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court for circulation to the District Judiciary through issuance of an appropriate circular. 
• The Court made it clear that bail granted to the appellant on November 27, 2025 would remain in operation till disposal of the appeal, and the appellant shall cooperate with the appellate court in expeditious disposal, preferably within three months. 

What are the Statutory Provisions in Relation to Bail? 

• The Indian bail system operates under Chapter 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The statutory framework creates a bifurcated classification between bailable and non-bailable offenses, establishing distinct procedural pathways for release consideration. 
• Section 479 of BNSS mandates that persons accused of bailable offenses possess an absolute right to bail upon furnishing appropriate security. Police officers in charge of stations and courts lack discretionary authority to deny bail for scheduled bailable offenses, ensuring immediate release upon compliance with statutory conditions. 
• Non-bailable offences under Section 480 require judicial evaluation based on statutory criteria including offense gravity, evidence strength, and defendant's antecedents. Courts must consider factors prescribed in Section 480(3) including likelihood of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and flight risk when exercising discretionary authority. 
• Section 482 provides for anticipatory bail, enabling individuals apprehending arrest for non-bailable offenses to seek pre-arrest protection from Sessions Courts or High Courts. This provision incorporates constitutional safeguards against arbitrary detention while maintaining investigative authority. 
• The statutory framework mandates automatic bail under Section 187 when investigations exceed prescribed time limits, implementing the "default bail" doctrine to prevent indefinite detention without trial. 

What is Section 138 of the NI Act? 

About: 

• Section 138 creates a statutory offence for dishonour of cheques due to insufficient funds or exceeding the arranged amount.  
• The essential elements that must be satisfied for constituting an offence under this section are: 
  • Primary Requirement: A cheque drawn by a person on his account with a banker for payment of money to another person must be returned unpaid by the bank due to insufficient funds or exceeding the arranged overdraft limit. 

Three Mandatory Conditions under the Proviso: 

• The cheque must be presented to the bank within six months from the date it was drawn or within its validity period, whichever is earlier. 
• The payee or holder in due course must issue a written demand notice to the drawer within thirty days of receiving information from the bank about the cheque being returned unpaid. 
• The drawer must fail to make payment of the cheque amount within fifteen days of receiving the demand notice. 
• Penalty Provision: Upon satisfaction of these conditions, the drawer commits an offence punishable with imprisonment up to two years, or fine up to twice the cheque amount, or both. 
• Scope Limitation: The debt or liability must be legally enforceable as clarified in the Explanation to the section.