Bail condition compliance required; non appearance without authorised counsel or traceable surety supports issuance of warrants and proclamation.

The text analyses obligations arising from bail conditions, emphasising that compliance with bail terms, authorised legal representation on listed dates, and availability of a traceable surety are prerequisites for cancelling warrants; warrants and proclamations may lawfully issue where the accused absents without prior permission, counsel lacks a valid vakalatnama, and the surety cannot be traced. It states that cancellation of warrants cannot be granted in absentia and that such procedural defaults justify non bailable warrants and proclamation, with the collateral petition under inherent powers dismissed accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders dated 02.03.2012 and 27.04.2012 of the Metropolitan Magistrate issuing non-bailable warrants and directing proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., and dismissing the accused's application for cancellation of warrants under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C., were erroneous and liable to be set aside under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Analysis: The petition concerns an accused enlarged on bail with exemption from personal appearance who travelled beyond the court's territorial jurisdiction without prior permission and whose counsel was not duly authorised on the relevant dates. The legal framework requires compliance with bail conditions, attendance or authorised representation on dates when the matter is listed, availability of surety at the recorded address, and personal appearance by the accused if warrants are to be cancelled. Warrants cannot be cancelled in absentia; the presence of the accused or proper authorised representation and traceable surety are material to cancellation and to the decision whether proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is warranted. The record shows absence of both accused and counsel holding a vakalatnama, and the surety was not traceable. Given these facts, issuance of non-bailable warrants and subsequent proclamation were consistent with the procedural requirements and bail obligations.

Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned orders is rejected; the orders issuing non-bailable warrants and directing proclamation, and dismissing the cancellation application, are upheld and the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed in favour of the respondent.

---