The Supreme Court has held that once a sentence is suspended and an accused is granted bail during the pendency of a criminal appeal, courts should not insist on the personal appearance of the accused on every date of hearing, observing that such a practice is unnecessary and burdensome.
The ruling came in a case arising from cheque dishonour proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act involving appellant Meenakshi and the State of Haryana.
- Case Title: Meenakshi v. State of Haryana & Another
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
- Date of Judgment: January 7, 2026
- Case: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19050 of 2025
The appeal challenged a November 14, 2025, order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had adjourned proceedings concerning the cancellation of the appellant’s bail during the pendency of her criminal appeal.
The matter originated from a prosecution initiated by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after two cheques issued by the appellant’s mother, amounting to ₹7,00,000 and ₹5,00,240, were dishonoured.
The trial culminated in conviction and sentencing, following which an appeal was filed and remained pending before the Sessions Court.
During the pendency of that appeal, the sentence had initially been suspended and the appellant released on bail. However, after a series of adjournments and changes of counsel, the appellate court cancelled the bail and issued a non-bailable warrant.
The appellant later surrendered and sought bail, but the request was rejected. She subsequently approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 482 CrPC), where the matter continued to be adjourned.
While examining the matter, the Supreme Court recorded concern about the manner in which the appellate proceedings had unfolded.
The Court noted that the accused had changed counsel multiple times, but said that this alone could not justify the cancellation of bail and issuance of a non-bailable warrant in the circumstances of the case.
The Court observed that the records showed the appellant had sought exemption from appearance due to illness, Herpes Zoster, and the exemption application had been allowed.
However, when the matter was called and the appellant could not immediately appear, the appellate court recalled the suspension of sentence and issued a non-bailable warrant.
The bench also noted another unusual aspect of the proceedings involving the death of the appellant’s mother. According to the Court,
“the records would also disclose that the mother of the petitioner herein, namely, Ms. Mary Parashar, is said to have expired for which the death certificate was also produced.”
However, the appellate court did not accept the certificate immediately and directed the local Station House Officer to verify its authenticity.
The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the approach adopted by the appellate court, particularly the insistence that the accused remain physically present at every hearing even after the suspension of sentence.
The bench described such a course as inappropriate and contrary to the purpose of granting bail during an appeal.
The Court said that a more appropriate course for the appellate court would have been to either appoint an amicus curiae or provide the accused an opportunity to arrange alternate legal representation. The bench observed:
“Prima facie the course open for the appellate court was to either appoint an amicus curiae and hear the appeal on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon or grant an opportunity to the concerned appellant-accused to make alternate arrangement if counsel was not assisting the Court.”
At the same time, the Court also acknowledged that the criminal appeal itself had been pending for more than eight years. The bench remarked that such prolonged pendency was not justified but clarified that the delay could not justify the procedure adopted by the appellate court.
During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the State of Haryana submitted that a practice existed in the state where accused persons were required to appear before appellate courts on every date of hearing even after suspension of sentence.
According to the State, the practice stemmed from Form No. 45 of Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which contains the format for a bond requiring attendance before the court.
Senior counsel appearing for the State acknowledged that this practice had developed because the accused executes a bond undertaking to attend court after being granted bail.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected the justification for such routine insistence on presence. The bench explained that once an appellate or revisional court has already exercised its discretion to suspend the sentence and release the accused on bail, the accused should not be compelled to appear on every hearing date.
The Court observed that criminal appeals often remain pending for months or years and are frequently adjourned for various reasons, including requests from either side or administrative constraints.
In such circumstances, the Court said, insisting on the physical presence of the accused on each date of hearing serves no meaningful purpose.
In a key passage of the ruling, the Court stated:
“However, in such circumstances, to call upon the accused to be present on every date of hearing before the Revisional Court or the Appellate Court would be burdensome to such accused and same is not warranted at all and it would serve no purpose.”
The bench further clarified that if an appeal or revision is ultimately dismissed, the legal consequences would follow automatically and the jurisdictional magistrate would have the authority to secure the presence of the accused in accordance with law.
Emphasising the legal position, the Court held:
“Hence, we are of the considered view that, directing the appellant – accused to be present before the Appellate Court or the Revisional Court would not be warranted particularly after an order for suspension of sentence has been passed and bail has been granted.”
With these observations, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal and directed that a copy of the order be placed before the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court so that appropriate instructions could be circulated to the district judiciary.
The Court also clarified that the bail granted earlier by the Supreme Court on November 27, 2025 would remain in operation until the disposal of the pending criminal appeal.
Finally, the bench directed that the long-pending appeal be decided expeditiously.
The Court ordered that the appellant must cooperate with the appellate court and that the appeal should preferably be disposed of within three months.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
