Meenakshi v. State of Haryana
“Accused on Bail Cannot Be Forced to Appear at Every Hearing in Appeal”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court held that once an appellate or revisional court suspends a sentence and grants bail, directing the accused to appear in person on every date of hearing is "unwarranted" and "burdensome." The Court slammed the appellate court's conduct in cancelling bail and issuing a non-bailable warrant against a woman in a cheque dishonour case whose appeal had been pending for over eight years, calling it "appalling and shocking." It directed the Punjab & Haryana High Court to circulate this order to all district judiciary to end the practice.
The Bottom Line
If you have been convicted and your sentence has been suspended on bail during appeal, the appellate court cannot force you to appear in person at every hearing date. Doing so is an unnecessary burden, especially when appeals drag on for years. The Supreme Court has declared this practice unwarranted and directed courts to stop it.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
Conviction by Trial Court
Meenakshi was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of two cheques amounting to Rs. 12,00,240 issued by her deceased mother
Conviction by Trial Court
Meenakshi was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of two cheques amounting to Rs. 12,00,240 issued by her deceased mother
Sentence Suspended and Bail Granted
The appellate court (Sessions Court) suspended the sentence and granted bail to Meenakshi in Criminal Appeal No. 956/2017
Sentence Suspended and Bail Granted
The appellate court (Sessions Court) suspended the sentence and granted bail to Meenakshi in Criminal Appeal No. 956/2017
Exemption Sought on Medical Grounds
Meenakshi sought exemption from personal appearance citing Herpes Zoster, supported by medical documents. The exemption was allowed.
Exemption Sought on Medical Grounds
Meenakshi sought exemption from personal appearance citing Herpes Zoster, supported by medical documents. The exemption was allowed.
Bail Cancelled and NBW Issued
When neither Meenakshi nor her counsel appeared, the appellate court cancelled bail and issued a Non-Bailable Warrant despite the sentence being suspended
Bail Cancelled and NBW Issued
When neither Meenakshi nor her counsel appeared, the appellate court cancelled bail and issued a Non-Bailable Warrant despite the sentence being suspended
Surrender and Bail Application Filed
Meenakshi surrendered before the court and filed a fresh bail application
Surrender and Bail Application Filed
Meenakshi surrendered before the court and filed a fresh bail application
Bail Application Rejected
The appellate court rejected the bail prayer, resulting in Meenakshi being taken into custody and lodged in District Jail, Faridabad
Bail Application Rejected
The appellate court rejected the bail prayer, resulting in Meenakshi being taken into custody and lodged in District Jail, Faridabad
Revision Petition Filed Before High Court
Meenakshi filed CRM-M-56737 of 2025 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the bail cancellation, but the matter was repeatedly adjourned
Revision Petition Filed Before High Court
Meenakshi filed CRM-M-56737 of 2025 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the bail cancellation, but the matter was repeatedly adjourned
Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail
The Supreme Court found the appellate court's conduct "appalling and shocking" and granted immediate interim bail on a self-bond of Rs. 1,00,000, directing release from District Jail, Faridabad
Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail
The Supreme Court found the appellate court's conduct "appalling and shocking" and granted immediate interim bail on a self-bond of Rs. 1,00,000, directing release from District Jail, Faridabad
Final Judgment by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, held that mandatory personal appearance after suspension of sentence is unwarranted, and directed circulation of the order to all district courts in Punjab & Haryana
Final Judgment by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, held that mandatory personal appearance after suspension of sentence is unwarranted, and directed circulation of the order to all district courts in Punjab & Haryana
The Story
Meenakshi's mother, Mary Parashar, issued two cheques amounting to Rs. 7,00,000 and Rs. 5,00,240 which were dishonoured, leading to criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Meenakshi was convicted and sentenced by the trial court, and she filed Criminal Appeal No. 956/2017 before the Sessions Court.
On October 10, 2017, the appellate court suspended the sentence and granted bail to Meenakshi. This bail was extended from time to time over the years. However, during the course of the appeal, Meenakshi changed her advocate six times, which appears to have frustrated the appellate court.
On August 22, 2025, Meenakshi sought exemption from appearing due to a medical condition — Herpes Zoster — and submitted supporting medical documents. The exemption was allowed. However, on September 4, 2025, when the matter was called, neither Meenakshi nor her counsel appeared. In a drastic step, the appellate court cancelled her bail and issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW).
On September 20, 2025, Meenakshi surrendered before the court and filed a bail application, but the appellate court rejected her bail prayer on September 23, 2025. She was taken into custody and lodged in District Jail, Faridabad.
Meenakshi then approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court by filing CRM-M-56737 of 2025, but the High Court repeatedly adjourned the matter without granting relief. Left with no recourse, she filed an SLP before the Supreme Court. On November 27, 2025, the Supreme Court took up the matter, found the appellate court's conduct "appalling and shocking," granted immediate interim bail on a self-bond of Rs. 1,00,000, and directed her release from District Jail, Faridabad. The matter was finally disposed of on January 7, 2026.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Sentence already suspended and bail granted for over eight years
The appellant contended that her sentence had been suspended and bail had been continuously extended since October 2017. Cancelling bail and issuing an NBW merely because of non-appearance on one date — despite an exemption having been granted earlier — was disproportionate and unjust.
Medical condition justified non-appearance
Meenakshi was suffering from Herpes Zoster and had submitted valid medical documentation. The exemption application on August 22, 2025 had been allowed, yet the court took coercive action on the very next date.
Appellate court should have appointed amicus curiae
Given the repeated change of advocates (six times), the proper course for the appellate court was to appoint an amicus curiae or grant time for alternative arrangement, not to cancel bail and issue an NBW.
High Court failed to provide any relief
Despite filing CRM-M-56737 of 2025 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the matter was repeatedly adjourned without any interim relief, leaving the appellant languishing in jail.
Right to personal liberty under Article 21
The appellant argued that keeping a person in jail during a pending appeal — when the sentence had already been suspended — violated her fundamental right to personal liberty, particularly given the eight-year delay in the appeal.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Repeated non-compliance and change of advocates
The respondent contended that the appellant had changed her advocate six times during the pendency of the appeal, causing delays and demonstrating non-cooperation with the appellate process.
Non-appearance on the date of hearing justified NBW
The State argued that neither the appellant nor her counsel appeared on September 4, 2025, and the court was justified in cancelling bail and issuing the NBW to secure the appellant's presence and progress the appeal.
Bail conditions require personal appearance
The respondent relied on the terms of the bail bond under Form No. 45 of the CrPC, which requires the accused to appear before the court on specified dates, arguing that non-compliance was a valid ground for cancellation.
Appeal must be heard on merits
The State argued that the appeal had been pending since 2017 and the appellant's repeated failure to appear or retain counsel was frustrating the appellate proceedings on merits.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court conducted a thorough review of the sequence of events and the conduct of the appellate court. The Court was deeply critical of the lower court's approach, noting that the appeal had been pending for over eight years — a period during which the appellant's sentence had been continuously suspended. The Court found it "appalling and shocking" that the appellate court resorted to cancelling bail and issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant merely because the appellant and her counsel did not appear on one hearing date, particularly when a medical exemption had been allowed on the previous date. The Court emphasized that once a sentence is suspended and bail is granted, the purpose of the appeal is to examine the conviction on merits, not to keep the accused tethered to the court through mandatory personal appearances on every date. It observed that appeals frequently remain pending for months or years with multiple adjournments, and requiring the accused to appear each time serves no practical purpose. The jurisdictional magistrate already possesses powers to secure the accused's presence if the appeal is eventually dismissed. The Court directed a copy of the order to the Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court for circulation to all district courts, effectively creating binding guidelines for the entire state judiciary.
Calling for personal appearance of accused on every date would be burdensome to such accused and same is not warranted at all.
The core holding of the judgment — directly prohibiting the practice of mandatory personal appearance at every hearing when sentence is suspended and bail is granted.
It is appalling and shocking that the appellate court insisted on appearance on every date, particularly with suspended sentence already passed.
The Supreme Court's sharp rebuke of the lower court demonstrates the severity with which it views the misuse of bail cancellation powers in appeal proceedings.
The proper course was to appoint amicus curiae or grant opportunity for alternate counsel arrangement.
Establishes a proportionate alternative that courts must consider before resorting to coercive measures when an appellant lacks legal representation.
She cannot be allowed to languish in jail, particularly when her appeal is pending, and the sentence already stands suspended.
Reaffirms the principle that the purpose of suspension of sentence is to protect the accused's liberty during the appeal, and this purpose cannot be defeated through harsh procedural requirements.
Even if the prevalent practice is driven by the terms of Form No. 45, it does not justify mandatory attendance for proceedings that may remain pending for years.
Clarifies that procedural forms cannot be mechanically applied to impose disproportionate burdens on accused persons whose sentences have been suspended.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
Interim bail granted on November 27, 2025 made absolute. The appellant's bail shall continue until disposal of the appeal. The appellate court directed to decide the appeal on merits expeditiously within three months.
Directions Issued
- Bail granted by the Supreme Court on November 27, 2025 shall continue to operate until the disposal of the criminal appeal (CRA No. 956/2017) before the Sessions Court
- The appellant shall cooperate for expeditious disposal of the appeal, preferably within three months
- Personal appearance before the appellate/revisional court on every date after suspension of sentence and grant of bail is not warranted
- Upon eventual dismissal of the appeal, the jurisdictional magistrate shall be empowered to secure the accused's presence in accordance with law
- A copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court for circulation to all District Judiciary through an official circular
Key Legal Principles Established
Once sentence is suspended and bail is granted in appeal, directing the accused to appear on every hearing date is unwarranted and burdensome.
Appellate courts must adopt proportionate responses to procedural non-compliance — appointing amicus curiae or allowing time for counsel change is preferred over cancelling bail and issuing NBWs.
Form No. 45 of the CrPC/BNSS regarding bail bonds does not justify the practice of mandatory personal appearance when sentence is suspended.
An accused cannot be made to languish in jail when the appeal is pending and the sentence stands suspended, regardless of delay or change of advocates.
The jurisdictional magistrate retains powers to secure the accused's presence if the appeal is eventually dismissed, making mandatory attendance during pendency unnecessary.
Courts must consider the medical condition and personal circumstances of the accused before resorting to coercive measures like bail cancellation.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If you have been convicted and your sentence has been suspended on bail during appeal, the court cannot force you to appear in person at every single hearing. The Supreme Court has said this is an unnecessary burden.
- If the appeal court cancels your bail or issues an arrest warrant just because you missed a hearing date, you can challenge this in the High Court or Supreme Court.
- Changing your lawyer multiple times during an appeal does not give the court the right to cancel your bail and put you in jail.
- If you are unable to attend court due to a medical condition, submit proper medical documents. Courts must consider your health before taking coercive action.
- Even if your appeal has been pending for years, you have the right to remain free on bail as long as your sentence is suspended — the court cannot use delay as a reason to jail you.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 21
Constitution of India
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Relevance: The fundamental right to personal liberty was implicated as the appellant was kept in jail despite her sentence being suspended during the pendency of appeal for over eight years.
Statutory Provisions
Section 138
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
“Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid...”
Relevance: The original conviction arose under this section for dishonour of two cheques amounting to Rs. 7,00,000 and Rs. 5,00,240 issued by the appellant's deceased mother.
Section 389 (Suspension of Sentence)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
“Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended.”
Relevance: The appellate court had exercised this power to suspend the sentence and grant bail in 2017, but later cancelled it in a manner the Supreme Court found unjustified.
Form No. 45 (Schedule II)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
“Bond for appearance at specified court on specified dates.”
Relevance: The Supreme Court held that even if the practice of mandatory attendance is driven by the terms of Form No. 45 regarding bail bonds, it does not justify forcing the accused to appear on every hearing date when the sentence is suspended.
Section 528
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
“Corresponding provision relating to suspension of sentence in the new criminal procedure code.”
Relevance: Referenced by the Court as the successor provision under the new criminal procedural law, ensuring the principle applies under both the old CrPC and the new BNSS.
Related Cases & Precedents
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI
similar(2022) 10 SCC 51
Supreme Court laid down comprehensive bail guidelines emphasizing personal liberty and the presumption of innocence — directly relevant to the bail principles regarding proportionate bail conditions.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
similar(2014) 8 SCC 273
Landmark judgment restricting arbitrary arrests and establishing guidelines for police conduct — both cases address the disproportionate use of coercive criminal process against personal liberty.
Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi
cited(2019) 11 SCC 341
Supreme Court held that in Section 138 NI Act cases, appellate courts should generally suspend sentence during the pendency of appeal — directly relevant to the propriety of bail conditions in cheque bounce appeals.
R. Dinesh Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu
cited(2015) 3 SCC 97
Addressed the issue of bail conditions and the proportionality of restrictions imposed on accused persons during the pendency of appeals.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena
(2015) 6 SCC 353
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied - The Call for Swift Maintenance Orders
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.