Allahabad High Court
Satish Chandra vs State Of U.P. on 12 November, 2025
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:199672
Reserved
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9637 of 2025
Satish Chandra
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
V.S. Rajpoot
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 51
HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This appeal is being decided at the stage of admission itself.
3. This appeal under Section - 495 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') has been filed seeking following relief:- "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 24.02.2025 passed by Additional District and Session Judge (F.T.C.), Bulandshahr in Session Trial No. 351/2014 (State Vs. Sandeep and Others) and order dated 18.03.2025 Additional District and Session Judge (F.T.C.) Bulandshahr in Misc. Case No. 182 of 2025 (State Vs. Satish Chandra) and further the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Bulandshahr sending the appellant in to jail".
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant and one Lal Singh were surety of accused Pushpendra in S.T. No. 351 of 2014, which is pending before the court of Additional Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No.4, Bulandshahr. During trial, said accused Pushpendra has absconded and thus, notice was issued to appellant-surety and said Lal Singh under Section - 446 CrPC by registering Misc. Case. Thereafter, by order dated 18.03.2025 non-bailable warrants were issued against appellant-surety. It was submitted that in fact said accused Pushpendra was in District Jail, Aligarh in some other case and in that regard an application was moved before the trial court on 31.05.2025 to summon accused Pushpendra from District Jail, Aligarh and consequently he was produced before the trial court on 26.06.2025. Despite the appearance of accused Pushpendra before the trial court, learned trial court has sent the appellant to jail vide order dated 15.09.2025 and since then appellant-surety is in jail. It is further submitted that no proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the appellant-surety to show cause before issuance of recovery warrants or before sending him to jail.
5. At this stage it would be pertinent to peruse the provisions of Section 446 CrPC, 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.''
6. Essentially section 446 CrPC 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 is apparent that appellant was surety for accused Pushpendra in the aforesaid case. There is nothing to show that the trial court has taken any action against the accused under section 446- A CrPC. Before issuance of recovery warrants, no notice was issued to the surety / appellant to show cause as to why penalty should not be paid by him. As stated above recovery proceedings may be initiated only if the surety / appellant is not able to show cause. Further, the trial court committed patent illegality by sending the surety / appellant to jail without resorting to proceeding of recovery of the penalty as if it were a fine imposed under the Cr.P.C.. The trial has also failed to consider the fact that said accused Pushpendra was in District Jail, Aligarh in some other case and in that regard an application was moved before the trial court on 31.05.2025 to summon accused Pushpendra from District Jail, Aligarh and consequently he was produced before the trial court on 26.06.2025, in such circumstances how the appellant / surety can be held responsible for the absence of accused before the trial court. Thus, prima facie there is nothing to show that the appellant / surety was liable to be proceeded for recovery of surety bond amount. Further, despite the appearance of accused Pushpendra before the trial court, learned trial court has sent the appellant to jail vide order dated 15.09.2025 and now the appellant-surety is stated to be in jail since 15.09.2025. In view of attending facts and circumstances the order of learned trial Court to send the appellant / surety to jail was wholly unwarranted and the same is arbitrary. Further, a surety can not be send to jail for indefinite period. In view of these facts and circumstances, it is apparent that impugned orders are against law and thus, liable to be quashed.
8. The impugned orders are set aside. The appellant is stated in jail, the trial court shall release the appellant forthwith. The trial court would be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings under Section - 446 Cr.P.C. against the appellant / surety in accordance with law.
9. Appeal is allowed in above terms.
(Raj Beer Singh,J.)
November 12, 2025
S Rawat
