NI Act Case: SC Slams Appellate Court’s “Shocking” NBW Order, Grants Immediate Interim Bail to Woman

The Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, while hearing the petition filed by the accused challenging the appellate court’s actions and the High Court’s failure to grant interim relief, noted serious procedural irregularities and held that the petitioner, a woman suffering from documented medical ailments, could not be kept in jail while her appeal remained undecided.

The case arose from a complaint filed by the second respondent alleging dishonour of two cheques issued by the petitioner’s late mother, amounting to ₹7,00,000 and ₹5,00,240. The petitioner and her mother were convicted, and the petitioner’s appeal against conviction has been pending before the Sessions Court. The appellate court had earlier suspended her sentence and granted bail on 10 October 2017.

However, after the petitioner changed counsel multiple times, the appellate court cancelled her bail, issued an NBW, and ordered her arrest. The Court remarked that although it did not appreciate the repeated changes in counsel, such conduct did not justify the appellate court’s extreme response.

The Bench took particular note of the appellate court’s refusal to accept the death certificate of the petitioner’s mother, directing instead that the local Station House Officer verify the certificate. It also recorded that when the petitioner, suffering from Herpes Zoster, had sought exemption on 22 August 2025, the application was allowed and the matter adjourned to 4 September 2025. But by the time she reached court on the next date, her bail had been cancelled and the NBW issued.

The petitioner surrendered on 20 September 2025 and applied for bail. The appellate court neither decided her application nor granted relief, but took her into custody and adjourned the matter until 23 September, ultimately rejecting the bail plea.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Sections 528 BNSS/482 CrPC. The High Court has been unable to take up the matter due to lack of time, leaving the petitioner in custody.

The Court expressed deep concern over the manner in which the appellate court insisted on the petitioner’s presence at every hearing despite her sentence being suspended.

The Bench observed that the proper course would have been to appoint an amicus curiae or permit the accused to make alternate arrangements rather than resorting to coercive steps.

Terming the situation “appalling and shocking,” the Court asked the State’s standing counsel, Akshay Amritanshu, to place on record the governing rules so that appropriate guidelines could be framed to prevent similar incidents.

The Bench also directed issuance of notice to the complainant and permitted the petitioner to serve notice through dasti.

Considering the petitioner’s medical condition, the pendency of her appeal, and the suspension of her sentence, the Supreme Court held that she was entitled to interim bail. The Court ordered the Superintendent of District Jail, Faridabad, to release her forthwith upon execution of a self-bond of ₹1,00,000.

The Registry was directed to immediately communicate the order to the jail authorities and ensure compliance by 4 pm on November 27, 2025. The matter has been directed to be listed again after three weeks.