In a significant ruling affecting criminal appeals across the country, the Supreme Court has clarified that an accused person does not have to appear before the appellate court on every hearing once bail has been granted and the sentence has been suspended. The judgment came in a case arising from a cheque bounce conviction, where the accused woman was repeatedly summoned despite being on bail.
The top court called the practice “unwarranted” and directed that such procedures should not burden accused persons unnecessarily.
Read also:- Rajasthan HC Rules RTE Quota Applies at Pre-School Level, Strikes Down State’s Restricted Entry Policy
Background of the Case
The case involved Meenakshi, who was convicted in a cheque dishonour matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint related to two cheques allegedly issued by her mother for a total amount of over ₹12 lakh. After conviction, Meenakshi filed an appeal, and her sentence was suspended in 2017, with bail granted.
However, years later, the appellate court cancelled her bail and issued a non-bailable warrant, citing her absence during hearings. The court even questioned the death certificate of her mother and directed police verification.
Despite medical reasons and multiple adjournments, the appellate court refused to extend relief and took her into custody, leading her to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court. With no immediate relief forthcoming, she finally moved the Supreme Court.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds Bihar Rule Requiring Pharmacy Diploma for Govt Jobs, Rejects Degree-Only Claims
What the Supreme Court Examined
The bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale examined whether an appellate court can insist on the personal presence of an accused on every hearing after suspending the sentence and granting bail.
The court took note of the fact that:
- The appeal had been pending for more than eight years
- Bail had already been granted earlier
- The accused had medical grounds for exemption
- The cancellation of bail happened abruptly
- The High Court had not decided the matter despite repeated listings
The judges also noted that the accused had changed lawyers multiple times, but said this alone could not justify such harsh action.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of the approach adopted by the lower court.
“The appellate court ought to have either heard the matter on merits or allowed reasonable opportunity to the accused,” the bench observed.
It further said that once a sentence is suspended and bail is granted, insisting on the accused’s presence on every date serves no real purpose.
The bench remarked that such a practice places unnecessary hardship on appellants, especially when appeals remain pending for years.
“Directing the appellant to remain present on every hearing after suspension of sentence is not warranted,” the court said.
The judges also pointed out that if an appeal is eventually dismissed, the law already provides enough power to secure the accused’s presence.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds Bihar Rule Requiring Pharmacy Diploma for Govt Jobs, Rejects Degree-Only Claims
Decision of the Court
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that:
- The accused cannot be compelled to appear on every date after bail is granted
- The cancellation of bail by the appellate court was unjustified
- The bail granted earlier shall continue till disposal of the appeal
- The appeal pending before the Sessions Court should be decided preferably within three months
The court also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court so that appropriate instructions may be circulated to subordinate courts.
With these directions, the appeal was disposed of.
Case Title: Meenakshi vs State of Haryana & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19050 of 2025
Decision Date: 7 January 2026
