Misc. Case No. 1112 of 2023 · Allahabad High Court

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant and one Parveen have stood surety for accused Raju in S.T. No.262 of 2021 and bail bond of Rs.1,50,000/- was submitted. During trial, said accused has absconded and thus proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were initiated against appellant and another surety namely Parveen. It was submitted that co-surety Parveen has filed an application in the Lok Adalat and he was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- for discharge of his liability. It was submitted that appellant has also moved an application before the trial Court to reduce the amount of penalty to be recovered from the appellant and to fix the case in Lok Adalat but his application was disposed of without any direction by the trial Court vide order dated 08.09.2025. Learned counsel submitted that the amount to be recovered from co-surety of Parveen was reduced from Rs.1.5 lakh to Rs.50,000/- thus similar analogy must have been adopted to the case of appellant-surety. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that impugned order is against law and liable to be quashed.

4. I have considered submissions and perused the record.

5. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to peruse the provisions of 2 CRLA No. 11306 of 2025 Section - 446 Cr.P.C., which read as under :- ''446. Procedure when bond has been forfeited.?(1) Where a bond under this Code is for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court and it is proved to the satisfaction of that Court, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, that the bond has been forfeited, or where, in respect of any other bond under this Code, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which the bond was taken, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, or of the Court of any Magistrate of the first class, that the bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid. Explanation.?A condition in a bond for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court shall be construed as including a condition for appearance, or as the case may be, for production of property, before any Court to which the case may subsequently be transferred. (2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same as if such penalty were a fine imposed by it under this Code: 1 [Provided that where such penalty is not paid and cannot be recovered in the manner aforesaid, the person so bound as surety shall be liable, by order of the Court ordering the recovery of the penalty, to imprisonment in civil jail for a term which may extend to six months.] (3) The Court may, 2[after recording its reasons for doing so], remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only. (4) Where a surety to a bond dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the bond. (5) Where any person who has furnished security under section 106 or section 117 or section 360 is convicted of an offence the commission of which constitutes a breach of the conditions of his bond, or of a bond executed in lieu of his bond under section 448, a certified copy of the judgment of the Court by which he was convicted of such offence may be used as evidence in proceedings under this section against his surety or sureties, and, if such certified copy is so used, the Court shall presume that such offence was committed by him unless the contrary is proved." "446A. Cancellation of bond and bail bond.?Without prejudice to the provisions of section 446, where a bond under this Code is for appearance of a person in a case and it is forfeited for breach of a condition,? (a) the bond executed by such person as well as the bond, if any, executed by one or more of his sureties in that case shall stand cancelled; and (b) thereafter no such person shall be released only on his own bond in that case, if the Police Officer or the Court, as the case may be, for appearance before whom the bond was executed, is satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for the failure of the person bound by the bond to comply with its condition: Provided that subject to any other provisions of this Code he may be released in that case upon the execution of a fresh personal bond for such sum of money and bond by one or more of such sureties as the Police Officer or the Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient.'' 3 CRLA No. 11306 of 2025

6. Essentially Section - 446 Cr.P.C. deals with sureties for breach of bond by the accused, whereas, Section - 446-A Cr.P.C. deals with the consequences to be faced by accused upon forfeiture of bond (personal bond). So far surety of accused is concerned a separate notice is required to be given to the sureties to show cause as to why penalty should not be paid by them and only if they are not able to show cause, the Court can proceed to recover the penalty as if it were a fine imposed under the CrPC. Thus, for taking action under section 446 CrPC, notice should be issued to the sureties and it should be proved in a separate proceedings that the accused had violated the bail bond for the sureties to make good the bond amount.

7. In the instant matter it appears from record that appellant has submitted surety bond of Rs.1.50 lakhs for appearance of Raju in aforesaid session trial case. Said accused Raju has absconded. It was shown that the case of co- surety has decided in Lok Adalat and the penalty amount was reduced from

1.5 lakhs to Rs.50,000/-. The appellant has also filed an application before the trial Court for reducing the amount on similar lines but the same has been rejected. As per provisions of Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. / 491(3) BNSS, the Court has power to remit any portion of penalty mentioned in the bail bonds.

8. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that interest of justice would serve if the penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- imposed by the trial Court, in pursuance to forfeiture of bail bond appellant/ surety, be reduced to Rs.50,000/-.

9. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellant / surety shall deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- in pursuance to the recovery proceedings of forfeiture of his bail bond. The impugned order stands altered to this extent. The appellant is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 45 days from today. On deposition of said amount, the proceedings of aforesaid miscellaneous case would stand disposed of. In case the said amount of Rs 50,000/- is not deposited by the appellant / surety within the aforesaid period, the impugned order and proceedings shall remain effective.For a period of 45 days from today no coercive action shall be taken against appellant.

10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. December 11, 2025 'SP'/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.)

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant and one Parveen have stood surety for accused Raju in S.T. No.262 of 2021 and bail bond of Rs.1,50,000/- was submitted. During trial, said accused has absconded and thus proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were initiated against appellant and another surety namely Parveen. It was submitted that co-surety Parveen has filed an application in the Lok Adalat and he was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- for discharge of his liability. It was submitted that appellant has also moved an application before the trial Court to reduce the amount of penalty to be recovered from the appellant and to fix the case in Lok Adalat but his application was disposed of without any direction by the trial Court vide order dated 08.09.2025. Learned counsel submitted that the amount to be recovered from co-surety of Parveen was reduced from Rs.1.5 lakh to Rs.50,000/- thus similar analogy must have been adopted to the case of appellant-surety. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that impugned order is against law and liable to be quashed.

4. I have considered submissions and perused the record.

5. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to peruse the provisions of 2 CRLA No. 11306 of 2025 Section - 446 Cr.P.C., which read as under :- ''446. Procedure when bond has been forfeited.?(1) Where a bond under this Code is for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court and it is proved to the satisfaction of that Court, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, that the bond has been forfeited, or where, in respect of any other bond under this Code, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which the bond was taken, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, or of the Court of any Magistrate of the first class, that the bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid. Explanation.?A condition in a bond for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court shall be construed as including a condition for appearance, or as the case may be, for production of property, before any Court to which the case may subsequently be transferred. (2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same as if such penalty were a fine imposed by it under this Code: 1 [Provided that where such penalty is not paid and cannot be recovered in the manner aforesaid, the person so bound as surety shall be liable, by order of the Court ordering the recovery of the penalty, to imprisonment in civil jail for a term which may extend to six months.] (3) The Court may, 2[after recording its reasons for doing so], remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only. (4) Where a surety to a bond dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the bond. (5) Where any person who has furnished security under section 106 or section 117 or section 360 is convicted of an offence the commission of which constitutes a breach of the conditions of his bond, or of a bond executed in lieu of his bond under section 448, a certified copy of the judgment of the Court by which he was convicted of such offence may be used as evidence in proceedings under this section against his surety or sureties, and, if such certified copy is so used, the Court shall presume that such offence was committed by him unless the contrary is proved." "446A. Cancellation of bond and bail bond.?Without prejudice to the provisions of section 446, where a bond under this Code is for appearance of a person in a case and it is forfeited for breach of a condition,? (a) the bond executed by such person as well as the bond, if any, executed by one or more of his sureties in that case shall stand cancelled; and (b) thereafter no such person shall be released only on his own bond in that case, if the Police Officer or the Court, as the case may be, for appearance before whom the bond was executed, is satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for the failure of the person bound by the bond to comply with its condition: Provided that subject to any other provisions of this Code he may be released in that case upon the execution of a fresh personal bond for such sum of money and bond by one or more of such sureties as the Police Officer or the Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient.'' 3 CRLA No. 11306 of 2025

6. Essentially Section - 446 Cr.P.C. deals with sureties for breach of bond by the accused, whereas, Section - 446-A Cr.P.C. deals with the consequences to be faced by accused upon forfeiture of bond (personal bond). So far surety of accused is concerned a separate notice is required to be given to the sureties to show cause as to why penalty should not be paid by them and only if they are not able to show cause, the Court can proceed to recover the penalty as if it were a fine imposed under the CrPC. Thus, for taking action under section 446 CrPC, notice should be issued to the sureties and it should be proved in a separate proceedings that the accused had violated the bail bond for the sureties to make good the bond amount.

7. In the instant matter it appears from record that appellant has submitted surety bond of Rs.1.50 lakhs for appearance of Raju in aforesaid session trial case. Said accused Raju has absconded. It was shown that the case of co- surety has decided in Lok Adalat and the penalty amount was reduced from

1.5 lakhs to Rs.50,000/-. The appellant has also filed an application before the trial Court for reducing the amount on similar lines but the same has been rejected. As per provisions of Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. / 491(3) BNSS, the Court has power to remit any portion of penalty mentioned in the bail bonds.

8. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that interest of justice would serve if the penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- imposed by the trial Court, in pursuance to forfeiture of bail bond appellant/ surety, be reduced to Rs.50,000/-.

9. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellant / surety shall deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- in pursuance to the recovery proceedings of forfeiture of his bail bond. The impugned order stands altered to this extent. The appellant is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 45 days from today. On deposition of said amount, the proceedings of aforesaid miscellaneous case would stand disposed of. In case the said amount of Rs 50,000/- is not deposited by the appellant / surety within the aforesaid period, the impugned order and proceedings shall remain effective.For a period of 45 days from today no coercive action shall be taken against appellant.

10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. December 11, 2025 'SP'/- (Raj Beer Singh,J.)