The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line against a practice that has quietly burdened accused persons in Haryana: forcing them to attend every appellate hearing even after their sentence has been suspended and bail granted.
Calling the approach unnecessary and purposeless, the Court observed that once a sentence stands suspended, there is little justification in compelling the accused to remain present on each date of hearing—especially when appeals routinely stretch over months or even years and are often adjourned for reasons beyond the accused’s control.
A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale noted that such insistence only adds to the hardship of the accused without advancing the cause of justice. Appellate proceedings, the Court remarked, frequently see delays at the instance of either side, and demanding physical presence on every date serves no meaningful end.
The judges made it clear that if an appeal or revision ultimately fails, the law already provides sufficient tools. At that stage, the jurisdictional magistrate is fully empowered to secure the accused’s presence and ensure compliance with the sentence.
The observations arose from a cheque dishonour case in which the appellant had been convicted but was granted suspension of sentence and bail during the pendency of her appeal. Complications followed when her counsel was repeatedly changed. The appellate court cancelled her bail, issued a non-bailable warrant, and she was taken into custody. After her plea for bail was rejected, she moved the High Court, and eventually approached the Supreme Court against an adjournment order.
At the notice stage itself, the Supreme Court expressed strong displeasure with the appellate court’s insistence on the appellant’s presence at every hearing, describing the approach as both “appalling” and “shocking.” The Bench pointed out that the appellate court could have either appointed an amicus curiae and decided the appeal on merits or allowed the appellant reasonable time to make alternate arrangements if her counsel was unavailable.
During the hearing, the State of Haryana informed the Court that such directions were part of a broader practice across the state. The explanation offered was rooted in Form No. 45 under the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires an accused to undertake to attend court after being released on bail. This undertaking, it was argued, was being interpreted to mandate appearance on every date of hearing.
The Supreme Court was unconvinced. It passed directions reiterating that such a blanket requirement is unwarranted where the sentence has already been suspended. The Court also directed that its order be placed before the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court so that the position is conveyed to the district judiciary.
For the appellant, the Court ordered that her bail shall continue until the disposal of the criminal appeal, subject to her cooperation in ensuring its expeditious hearing.
