[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Satendra Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. on 16 April, 2026
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:83542
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3777 of 2026
Satendra Kumar And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Kuldeep Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 90
HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 495 BNSS against judgment and order dated 27.10.2025, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions, F.T.C.-IV, Bulandshahr in Criminal Misc. Case No.778 of 2025 (State Vs. Satendra Kumar and Another), P.S.- Jahangirabad, District- Bulandshahr, whereby the Misc. Case under Section 446 Cr.P.C. has been registered and notice has been issued to the appellants / sureties.
2. This appeal is being decided finally at the stage of admission itself.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in Case Crime No.96 of 2022, under Sections 436, 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC, PS- Jahangirabad, District- Bulandshahr, appellants have stood surety for accused Anil Kumar and they have submitted bail bonds to the tune of Rs.30,000/-. During pendency of the said case, accused Anil Kumar did not appear before the trial Court and non-bailable warrants were issued against him and thereafter Misc. Case under Section 446 Cr.P.C. was registered and notice was issued to the appellants vide impugned order dated 27.10.2025. Learned counsel submitted that meanwhile said accused Anil Kumar has surrendered before the trial Court on 05.02.2026 and he was sent to jail. It was submitted that as accused has already surrendered, thus the impugned order may be set aside.
5. Learned AGA has opposed and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
6. I have considered submissions and perused the record.
7. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to peruse the provisions of Section - 446 and 446-A 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.''
8. 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 has violated the bail bond for the sureties to make good the bond amount.
9. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that appellants have stood surety for accused Anil Kumar in above referred case. It appears that during trial said accused Anil Kumar did not appear before the trial Court on several dates and thus non-bailable warrants were issued against him and a case was registered against appellants/ sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C. and notice was issued against them. In view of these facts and circumstances, it can not be said that there is any material illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 27.10.2025, in as much as merely a notice has been issued to the appellants. So far this fact is concerned that meanwhile said accused Anil Kumar has surrendered before the trial Court, the appellants may submit their objections before the court concerned in pursuance to the notice issued to them.
10. In view of aforesaid, it is directed that in case appellants/ sureties file their objections against proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the court concerned expeditiously in accordance with law. It is further directed that for a period of four weeks from today and in case objections are filed by the appellants/ sureties before the court concerned within the aforesaid period of four weeks, till disposal of such objections, no coercive action shall be taken against appellants.
11. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(Raj Beer Singh,J.)
April 16, 2026
'SP'/-
