Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sumeet Goel held that non-bailable warrants must not be issued mechanically and can only be justified by cogent reasons reflecting necessity, especially in the absence of misconduct or deliberate evasion. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Jaskaran Singh v. State of Haryana and another (2025). 

What was the Background of Jaskaran Singh v. State of Haryana and another (2025) Case? 

• The case involves a petitioner named Jaskaran Singh who was facing prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(cheque bounce case). After being granted bail on July 18, 2023, the petitioner regularly attended court hearings. However, on October 11, 2024, he failed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram, allegedly due to health issues. 
• The petitioner has been suffering from abnormal mild diffuse encephalopathy since 2021, a condition that affects his cognitive and physical abilities. This medical condition was supported by medical reports submitted to the court. 
• Upon his absence on October 11, 2024, the trial court cancelled his bail and issued non-bailable warrants against him. Additionally, proceedings under Sections 82/83 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 were initiated against the petitioner. 
• The petitioner approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking quashing of the trial court's order, arguing that his non-appearance was unintentional and solely due to his health condition.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Justice Sumeet Goel observed that the issuance of non-bailable warrants must not be exercised in a mechanical manner and must be adopted sparingly only upon recording cogent reasons reflecting the necessity of such a stringent course. 
• The Court noted that the trial court's direct issuance of non-bailable warrants without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner was arbitrary and contrary to procedural safeguards enshrined under law. 
• The Court held that the cancellation of bail and issuance of arrest warrants amounted to an unjustifiable restriction on the procedural rights of the petitioner in the absence of any misconduct, lack of bona fides, or deliberate attempt to evade proceedings. 
• The court held that the primary object of bail and forfeiture of bail bonds is to secure the presence of the accused, and the petitioner had shown willingness to appear before the trial court on subsequent dates. 
• The Court referenced several Supreme Court judgments establishing that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative, but to secure the appearance of the accused at trial. 
• The Court observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless required to ensure that an accused person will stand trial when called upon, reinforcing the principle that punishment begins after conviction. 

What is a Non-Bailable Warrant? 

• A non-bailable warrant is a judicial directive that authorizes law enforcement agencies to arrest a person and produce them before the court, without providing the option of immediate bail upon arrest. 
• When a non-bailable warrant is issued, the arrested individual cannot be released on bail by the police officer executing the warrant; instead, bail can only be granted by a competent court after consideration of the specific circumstances of the case. 
• The issuance of non-bailable warrants is typically reserved for serious offenses, cases where the accused has repeatedly failed to appear before the court despite opportunities, or situations where the court has reasonable grounds to believe the accused may abscond or tamper with evidence. 
• Section 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code governs the form of warrants of arrest, while Sections 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, and 80 provide the procedural framework for the execution of such warrants. 
• As established in State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980), non-bailable warrants should not be issued routinely or mechanically, but only after proper judicial consideration of the circumstances necessitating such a serious restriction on liberty. 
• The execution of non-bailable warrants must follow specific procedural safeguards, including informing the arrested person of the contents of the warrant and producing them before the court without delay, generally within 24 hours of arrest.