Can Failure to Furnish Bail Bonds be treated as Contempt? Delhi Court says No

The case arose from an Appeal filed by Kuldeep and Rakesh, who were facing trial before the Magistrate in a complaint case titled Harkesh Jain v. Anil & Ors.The accused were granted bail on January 20, 2025, and were directed to furnish bonds by February 18, 2025. Despite adjournments, the bonds were not submitted. On July 15, 2025, the Magistrate held them guilty of contempt for “wasting court time” and convicted them under Section 228 IPC.

The magistrate’s order recorded that repeated calls for compliance had been ignored and went on to punish Kuldeep by taking him into judicial custody and ordering both accused to stand with their hands in the air till the court’s rising.

However, Principal District & Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna took strong exception to the approach adopted by the trial court.

"Firstly, the Ld. Magistrate failed to take note of the fact that new criminal laws have came into effect w.e.f. 01.07.2024 and the proceedings conducted by Ld. Magistrate under Indian Penal Code is incorrect application of law," it said. 

The Judge observed that non-furnishing of bail bonds did not amount to “intentional insult or interruption” under Section 228 IPC. Moreover, the procedure prescribed under Section 345 CrPC for contempt proceedings had not been followed, including the mandatory opportunity to show cause and the limited punishment of a fine not exceeding Rs. 200.

"It is also clear that Ld. Magistrate did not afford any opportunity to the accused persons to show cause as to why they should not be proceeded against under the provision of Section 228 IPC. Without hearing, petitioners (accused) were asked to stand in the court till the rising of the court with their hands straight in the air. This kind of sentence is not contemplated in law," the Sessions Judge observed. 

Importantly, the Sessions Court flagged that with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the IPC with effect from July 1, 2024, the magistrate had wrongly invoked provisions under repealed law without considering the applicable legal framework. "Ld. Magistrate failed to take note that Indian Penal Code stands replaced with the provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 with effect from 01.07.2024 and the offence (though not committed) should have been covered under the new law," the Court said. 

The Court also noted that ordering an accused to stand with raised hands was not a punishment recognised under law, and such conduct undermined the dignity and personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. “Every person, even if accused, has the inalienable right to be treated with dignity,” the Court underscored.

“The magistrate failed in his duty to conduct proceedings in accordance with law. He is advised to properly read and understand the legal provisions before exercising discretionary powers,” the Judge added in strong words.

Setting aside the order dated July 15, 2025, the Court restored the matter before the Magistrate for continuation of trial and directed both parties to appear on August 11, 2025.

Conclusively, the Sessions Judge ordered, "In the present case, Ld. Magistrate completely failed in his duty and responsibility to conduct judicial proceedings legally and properly. The order passed by Ld. Magistrate thereby convicting the accused persons under Section 228 IPC and sentencing them to stand with their hands in air till the rising of the court is not sustainable. Ld. Magistrate is advised to properly read and understand the legal provisions before using his discretionary powers."

It is to be noted that on July 15, the Magistrate Court had observed, "Despite waiting and calling the matter twice from 10:00 AM till 11:40 AM, the bail bonds were not furnished by the accused persons. For wasting the time of the court, which is in contempt of the order duly promulgated on last date of hearing, the accused persons are hereby held guilty for contempt of court proceedings and are convicted for offence U/s 228 IPC. They are directed to stand in the court till the rising of this court with their hands straight in the Air."