Bail default in a cheque dishonour case justified non-bailable warrants and proclamation when the accused sought relief in absentia.

An accused on bail in a cheque dishonour complaint who failed to appear, travelled outside India without permission, and sought cancellation of warrants in absentia could not resist coercive process. The court noted the absence of an authorised counsel, a valid vakalatnama, and traceable surety, and found that non-bailable warrants and proclamation were justified. The challenge was rejected and the impugned orders were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders issuing non-bailable warrants and directing proclamation against the accused required interference, and whether the application for cancellation of warrants could be entertained without the accused appearing before the court.

Analysis: The accused had been enlarged on bail in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was bound to remain present or be duly represented when required. On the relevant date neither the accused nor an authorised counsel appeared, and the accused had travelled outside India without prior permission of the court. The application for cancellation of warrants was moved in the accused's absence, although cancellation of warrants cannot be sought in absentia. The court also noted the absence of a valid vakalatnama and the inability to trace the surety, which reinforced the conclusion that coercive process was warranted.

Conclusion: The orders issuing non-bailable warrants and proclamation were justified, and the challenge to them failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was found to be without merit and the impugned orders were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An accused on bail who fails to appear, travels abroad without permission, and seeks cancellation of warrants without submitting to the court's jurisdiction cannot claim interference with coercive process, including non-bailable warrants and proclamation.

---