In a major relief for litigants involved in long-drawn criminal appeals, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that an accused person is not required to be present before the Appellate or Revisional Court on every date of hearing once their sentence has been suspended and bail has been granted.

A Division Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed that compelling an accused to attend routine hearings in a pending appeal is "burdensome" and "not warranted at all," especially when such cases remain pending for years.

The ruling came in an appeal filed by one Meenakshi, who was embroiled in a legal battle under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (cheque bounce case) originating from 2017. The case involved cheques worth approximately ₹12 lakhs issued by her late mother.

Meenakshi had been convicted by a trial court, following which she filed an appeal. Her sentence was initially suspended, and she was released on bail in October 2017. However, after eight years of pendency, the Appellate Court cancelled her bail and issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) because her counsel had changed multiple times and she had missed a hearing due to a medical condition (Herpes Zoster).

When Meenakshi approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, her petition was repeatedly adjourned due to "paucity of time," forcing her to move the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the Appellate Court’s conduct. The Bench noted that the lower court had even refused to accept the death certificate of the appellant's mother at face value, directing the police to verify its authenticity.

Referring to the cancellation of bail over counsel changes and health-related absences, the Court remarked:

"It is appalling and shocking to note that the appellate court insisted on the appearance of the appellant on every date of hearing, particularly in the backdrop of the suspension of sentence already passed."

The Bench clarified that if an appeal is pending for a long time or if a lawyer is not assisting the court, the proper course of action is to appoint an Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) to hear the matter on merits, rather than harassing the accused by revoking their bail.

During the proceedings, the State of Haryana argued that calling the accused on every date is a prevalent practice in the state. This practice is often justified by Form No. 45 (Bond and Bail-Bond) of the CrPC, where the accused undertakes to attend the court whenever called.

The Supreme Court, however, dismissed this justification for routine attendance. The Court held:

Burden on Accused: Compelling presence on every date serves no purpose and creates an unnecessary burden on the citizen.
Procedural Sufficiency: If an appeal is eventually dismissed, the law already provides enough power to the Magistrate to secure the accused and make them serve the sentence.
No Utility: In a pending appeal or revision, the physical presence of the accused adds no value to the legal arguments being made by the advocates.

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with several critical directions to reform the process:

No Mandatory Presence: The Court explicitly held that directing an accused to be present on every date after sentence suspension is not warranted.
Release of Appellant: The Court confirmed that the bail granted to Meenakshi would remain in operation until her appeal is finally decided.
Expedited Hearing: The Appellate Court has been directed to decide Meenakshi’s 8-year-old appeal within three months.
Judicial Circular: A copy of the order has been sent to the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to be circulated among all district judges to ensure this "burdensome" practice is stopped.

This judgment is a significant step toward making the Indian legal system more user-friendly. By removing the requirement for "every date" attendance, the Supreme Court has protected the rights of the accused from procedural harassment, reinforcing that the legal process should not become a punishment in itself.

Case: Meenakshi v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Citation: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 19050 of 2025

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Dhruv Gautam, AOR

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G.