Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to an accused charged with robbery and use of a deadly weapon, holding that initiation of proclamation proceedings due to non-appearance does not automatically disentitle an accused from bail. The Court emphasized that where the accused had earlier been granted bail on merits, had spent substantial time in custody, and the trial had progressed significantly, continued incarceration would be unjustified merely because proclamation proceedings were initiated later .
Facts
The prosecution case arose from an incident dated 25 November 2023, when the complainant and his friend were allegedly robbed near Ghiyasuddin Tomb, Delhi. It was alleged that the accused persons threatened them, forcibly snatched the complainant’s mobile phone, and attacked him with a sharp object. An FIR was registered under serious penal provisions relating to robbery with a deadly weapon, and the applicant was arrested the next day on the basis of secret information and disclosure statements of co-accused persons.
The applicant was initially granted bail by the trial court in June 2024 after considering his young age, lack of previous criminal involvement, and the fact that public witnesses had already been examined. However, when the applicant failed to appear before the trial court in May 2025, non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings were initiated, leading to his re-arrest in August 2025 .
Issues
The key issue before the High Court was whether an accused, who had earlier been granted bail on merits but later became subject to proclamation proceedings due to non-appearance, could again be granted bail. The Court was also required to consider whether such proclamation proceedings create an absolute bar to bail, irrespective of the stage of trial, prior custody period, and absence of change in circumstances.
Applicant’s arguments
The applicant contended that his non-appearance before the trial court was neither deliberate nor intended to evade the trial. It was submitted that he was subjected to harassment by a beat constable, compelling him to temporarily leave Delhi. Emphasizing his young age of 22 years, lack of criminal antecedents, and the fact that he had already been found entitled to bail earlier, the applicant argued that denying bail solely on account of proclamation proceedings would amount to forcing him to undergo incarceration for the entire duration of trial. It was stressed that there was no statutory prohibition against granting bail in such circumstances .
Respondent’s arguments
The State opposed the bail application, contending that the proclamation proceedings were initiated only after the applicant failed to appear despite court directions. The prosecution argued that the applicant’s explanation regarding alleged harassment by a police official was unsupported by any documentary material and had already been rejected by the trial court while dismissing the application seeking recall of proclamation proceedings. According to the State, the applicant’s conduct raised a serious apprehension of him being a flight risk, warranting denial of bail.
Analysis of the law
The Court examined the settled principles governing grant of bail, particularly the balance between ensuring the presence of the accused at trial and safeguarding personal liberty. It reiterated that bail jurisprudence does not recognize proclamation proceedings as an absolute embargo on grant of bail. Instead, courts must assess the totality of circumstances, including prior bail orders, duration of custody, progress of trial, and whether there is any material change warranting continued incarceration.
The Court underscored that bail is not meant to operate as a punitive measure for procedural lapses, especially when the accused is otherwise entitled to liberty on merits.
Precedent analysis
While no specific precedent was cited, the Court’s reasoning aligns with consistent judicial views that proclamation under criminal procedure laws is a coercive mechanism to secure appearance and not a substantive punishment. Higher courts have repeatedly held that once the purpose of securing the accused’s presence is achieved, courts must independently assess whether continued detention is necessary, rather than mechanically denying bail.
Court’s reasoning
The High Court noted that there was no change in the circumstances that had earlier persuaded the trial court to grant bail to the applicant. Although proclamation proceedings raised concerns about the applicant’s conduct, the Court held that such proceedings do not create an absolute bar against bail. It was also significant that the proclamation was initiated nearly a year after the applicant’s release on bail, and that he had voluntarily appeared before the trial court in August 2025.
The Court further observed that after re-arrest, the applicant had already spent considerable additional time in custody. In these circumstances, the Court found that continued incarceration for the entire duration of trial would be disproportionate, particularly when the remaining witnesses were formal in nature .
Conclusion
Allowing the bail application, the Delhi High Court directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties, subject to stringent conditions to ensure his presence during trial. These included regular appearance before the trial court, periodic reporting to the investigating officer, restriction on travel outside the country, and maintenance of updated contact details. The Court clarified that any subsequent misconduct could form the basis for cancellation of bail .
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that personal liberty cannot be curtailed indefinitely due to procedural defaults alone. It clarifies that proclamation proceedings are not a statutory bar to bail and that courts must continue to apply a balanced, fact-sensitive approach. The ruling is particularly relevant in cases involving young accused with no criminal antecedents, emphasizing that bail jurisprudence must remain reformative rather than punitive.
Case law references
- Bail principles under criminal procedure
Courts have consistently held that bail cannot be denied as a punitive response to non-appearance once the accused is secured and circumstances justify release.
FAQs
1. Does initiation of proclamation proceedings automatically bar bail?
No. The Delhi High Court has clarified that proclamation proceedings do not create an absolute bar to the grant of bail.
2. Can bail be restored after it was earlier cancelled due to non-appearance?
Yes. Courts can grant bail again after evaluating custody period, trial progress, and absence of material change in circumstances.
3. What safeguards can courts impose in such cases?
Courts may impose stringent conditions such as periodic reporting, travel restrictions, and strict compliance with court appearances.
