The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that where an accused demonstrates bonafide reasons such as illness for failing to appear before the court, and has previously complied with court attendance, courts should adopt a more liberal stance in considering applications for cancellation of arrest warrants. This judgment upholds a flexible approach, reaffirming the need for context-sensitive judicial discretion, and serves as binding authority within Chhattisgarh, with persuasive value elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/2181/2025 of Dhaman Lal Dhankar Vs State of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010452382025 |
| Date of Registration | 17-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a court should take a liberal view in cancelling arrest warrants for non-appearance when the appellant shows bonafide reasons (such as illness), especially if prior attendance demonstrates compliance. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that, in situations where the appellant fails to appear due to bonafide reasons (such as illness) and there is no record of habitual absence, a more liberal approach should be adopted when considering cancellation of an arrest warrant. The judgment emphasizes that if there is no evidence of prior non-appearance and the absence on the specific date is justified, the bonafide nature of the absence cannot be doubted. The court found the Special Court’s failure to consider the regularity of previous appearances incomplete and consequently allowed the appeal. The order directs release on bail with specified conditions. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant was being tried under various IPC sections, the IT Act, and the SC/ST Act. He failed to appear on the hearing date due to illness, and his counsel also inadvertently failed to appear. An arrest warrant was issued, and after arrest, his application for cancellation of the warrant was rejected. The High Court found the absence was justified and not habitual, warranting a liberal approach. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court underscores the obligation of subordinate courts to consider prior attendance and bonafide reasons for absence before rejecting a cancellation application for an arrest warrant.
- For clients with one-off, justified absences, this judgment can be cited to argue for a liberal approach to warrant cancellation.
- Rejecting a cancellation application without considering the past attendance pattern may be a ground for appeal.
- Conditions attached to bail include mandatory appearance, non-tampering of witnesses, and scope for cancellation upon future infractions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court reviewed the Special Court’s order and highlighted its failure to mention the appellant’s pattern of previous attendance.
- When there is no record of habitual non-appearance and an accused provides a bonafide explanation for a specific absence, the absence of prior breach should be taken into account.
- The court opined that a liberal interpretation should favor granting cancellation of arrest warrants and allowing bail in such circumstances.
- The case was allowed on the finding that the appellant’s sickness and the inadvertent absence of his counsel justified the single-day absence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The appellant was ill prior to the hearing and could not inform his counsel.
- Counsel inadvertently failed to appear when the case was called.
- Non-appearance was bonafide, not deliberate.
- Sought direction for release on bail.
Respondent (State)
- Arrest warrant was rightly issued owing to non-appearance on several subsequent dates.
- The appellant, though recovered, failed to appear for five subsequent hearings, indicating negligence.
- Terms of bail were violated, hence cancellation justified.
Factual Background
The appellant was facing trial in Special Sessions Case No.17/2023 for alleged offences under Section 120(b), 364(A), 365, 386 IPC, Section 76(d) IT Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. He missed a court appearance scheduled for 26.4.2025, purportedly due to illness, and his counsel also failed to appear due to oversight. The Special Court issued an arrest warrant, and after his arrest, his application for cancellation of the warrant was rejected. The High Court found the absence was justified by illness and not habitual or deliberate.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 14(A)(2) of the SC/ST Act: Appeal provision against orders under the Act.
- Section 70(2) read with Section 493 CrPC (corresponds to Section 72(2) and 483 of BNSS, 2023): Governs issuance and cancellation of arrest warrants and presence of accused.
- The court interpreted these provisions to require a consideration of prior attendance records and bonafide absence before denying cancellation of an arrest warrant.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment reiterates the procedural necessity of courts recording and considering an accused’s previous court attendance when exercising discretion over cancellation of arrest warrants.
- It further clarifies the process for subordinate courts regarding assessment of bonafide reasons in non-appearance matters.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment adheres to established principles on liberal interpretation regarding bonafide absence and court attendance, reaffirming judicial discretion.