Bail cancellation for repeated absence: persistent non-appearance can justify custody even in a bailable offence when trial progress is stalled.

Repeated non-appearance by an accused can justify cancellation of bail even in a bailable offence where attendance conditions are breached and the conduct obstructs a fair, uninterrupted trial. The article notes that persistent absence, despite bonds and warrants, may permit the court to refuse further release and direct custody, particularly where the trial has remained stalled for years. It also states that revisional and inherent jurisdiction may be invoked when an accused's conduct frustrates the administration of justice, and that the decisive concern is the prospect of an expeditious trial rather than distinctions based on evidence tampering or departure abroad.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail granted to an accused in a bailable offence could be cancelled on account of repeated absence, prolonged non-availability, and consequent obstruction to the progress of the trial.

Analysis: The accused had repeatedly failed to remain present despite earlier bonds and warrants, and the matter had remained stalled for years. The relevant provisions recognised that even in a bailable offence, once an accused has failed to comply with the conditions of the bail bond as to attendance, the Court may refuse to release him again and the higher court may direct arrest and custody. The Court also applied the principle that the overriding consideration in bail matters is the prospect of a fair and uninterrupted trial, and that revisional as well as inherent jurisdiction can be invoked where the conduct of the accused frustrates the administration of justice. The distinction sought from cases involving tampering with evidence or flight abroad was held not to be decisive, because persistent absence itself could defeat the trial.

Conclusion: The bail order in favour of the accused was cancelled, and the complainant's challenge to the grant of bail succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The Court prioritized the uninterrupted conduct of the long-pending criminal trial over continued liberty of an accused whose repeated absence had stalled proceedings, and upheld the power to cancel bail even in a bailable offence where attendance obligations were breached.

Ratio Decidendi: A court may cancel bail and direct custody of an accused in a bailable offence when repeated non-appearance and breach of attendance conditions obstruct a fair and expeditious trial.

---