January 08, 2026 : The Supreme Court of India has held that once an appellate or revisional court suspends a sentence and grants bail, an accused person cannot be compelled to appear in court on every date of hearing. The ruling clarifies that such insistence is unnecessary, burdensome, and serves no practical purpose.
The decision was delivered by a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale while hearing an appeal filed by Meenakshi against the State of Haryana and another respondent. The appeal arose from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, relating to the dishonour of two cheques amounting to ₹12,00,240.
The appellant had been convicted and granted suspension of sentence with bail in 2017 during the pendency of her appeal. However, the appellate court later cancelled her bail and issued a Non-Bailable Warrant after she changed counsel multiple times. She was taken into custody despite having earlier been exempted from appearance on health grounds.
Before the Supreme Court, the State explained that in Haryana there is a prevailing practice of requiring accused persons to appear on all hearing dates even after suspension of sentence and grant of bail. This practice, it was submitted, flows from Form No. 45 in Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which contains a bond undertaking to attend court.
Rejecting this approach, the Supreme Court observed that once an appellate or revisional court has applied its mind and suspended the sentence, insisting on personal appearance on every date is unwarranted. Appeals often remain pending for long periods and are frequently adjourned for reasons beyond the control of the accused. In such circumstances, compelling attendance only adds to hardship without advancing the cause of justice.
The Bench made it clear that if an appeal or revision is eventually dismissed, the consequences would follow in accordance with law, and the jurisdictional magistrate would have full authority to secure the accused’s presence. There was therefore no justification for repeated compulsory appearances during the pendency of the appeal.
The Court strongly criticised the conduct of the appellate court, describing it as “appalling and shocking” that the appellant was required to be present on every date even after suspension of sentence. It noted that the proper course would have been either to appoint an amicus curiae and decide the appeal on merits, or to give the accused reasonable time to make alternate arrangements if counsel was unavailable.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed that a copy of its order be placed before the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for circulation to the district judiciary through an appropriate circular. The Court also ordered that the bail granted to the appellant would continue till the disposal of her pending appeal and directed the appellate court to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within three months.