Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Heera Bharti vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:38440) on 27 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:38440]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6744/2025
Heera Bharti S/o Shri Lahar Bharti, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Math Dantlawas, Tehsil Jaswatpura, District Jalore (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jamtaram Patel
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
27/08/2025
1. Petitioner/accused seeks quashing of an order dated
06.06.2025, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal,
District Jalore in FIR No.116/2024, registered at Police Station
Jaswantpura, District Jalore, vide which, learned trial court
forfeited his bail bonds, arrest warrant was issued against him and
proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. have been initiated
separately against his surety and the learned Judge declared the
petitioner as an absconder.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
went outside the State to earn his daily livelihood, therefore, he
could not appear before the learned Court below. The learned trial
Court, considering the petitioner's absence on the fateful day,
forfeited the bail bonds and also ordered to initiation of
proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. separately.
[2025:RJ-JD:38440] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6744/2025]
3. Learned PP would support the impugned order passed by the
learned Court below for the reasons stated therein.
4. Reference may be had to a judgment in Mohammad Haras
Vs. State of Punjab1 relevant whereof, for ready reference, is
reproduced as below :-
"5. Heard.
6. No doubt, learned trial Court has got discretion to cancel the
bail, however, it is well settled that before passing such an order,
Court is required to issue notice to the accused so as to afford him an
opportunity to explain as to why the bail should not be cancelled.
Such course has not been adopted by learned Judge, Special Court,
Sangrur in the instant case. On this ground alone, impugned order to
the extent of cancellation of bail deserves to be set aside.
7. Moreover, cancellation of bail is a serious matter and can
have significant impact on the life of a person. Matters of personal
liberty ought not to be taken so lightly and in such mechanical
manner as in the case herein.
8. In the premise, impugned order is set aside. Earlier bail order
stands revived on bail bond and surety bond already furnished by
petitioner before learned trial Court. Petitioner is directed to join
proceedings before learned trial Court within three weeks from today
and shall continue to appear before learned trial Court without
default.
9. Petition is accordingly allowed."
5. As regards the directions issued by the learned trial court to
proceed against the sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C., the same
is also a serious procedural fallacy committed by the learned trial
Magistrate and cannot be sustained. On this point as well,
guidelines enunciated in a judgment titled Varinder Singh Vs.
State of Punjab: (2023:PHHC:104379), are relevant. For
ready reference, same are reproduced hereinbelow:-
"9. In the light of the statutory provisions of sections 444 and 446
of the Code and, the observations recorded above, I am of the
opinion that the following procedure and principles governing the
discharge of a surety and when necessary, for forfeiting the bond and
the further steps to be taken for imposing the penalty upon the surety
need to be kept in mind by the courts :-
A. DISCHARGE OF SURETY
[2025:RJ-JD:38440] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6744/2025]
A.1 . Surety can seek discharge at any stage : An individual who has
stood surety for someone released on bail has the right to apply to
the Court to be discharged from his responsibilities. He can seek a
complete discharge from the bond.
A.2. Warrant of Arrest for accused: Upon receiving the application
from the surety, the Court will issue a warrant of arrest for the
person concerned who was released on bail to be produced before
the Court.
A.3 Appearance of the bailed Person: Once the person concerned
is brought before the Court through the warrant of arrest or
otherwise appears, the Court shall direct the surety bond to be
discharged.
A.4. Finding New Sureties: Once the Court orders the discharge of
the bond for the surety, the person who was released on bail will be
required to find other sufficient surety.
A.5. Consequences of Failure: If the person who was released on
bail fails to find other sufficient surety as required, the Court may
commit him to jail.
B. FOR FORFEITING THE SURETY BOND AND IMPOSING
PENALTY
B.1 Forfeiture of bond and proof :- If a bond is executed for the
appearance of an individual before a court or for the production of
property and it is proven to the satisfaction of the court that the bond
has been forfeited, the court must record the grounds for such proof.
Similarly, if a bond is forfeited in any other context, the court must
also record the grounds for forfeiture.
B.2 . Notice and penalty :- The court may then call upon the person
who is bound by the bond (surety) to either pay the penalty specified
in the bond or to show cause why the penalty should not be paid. If
sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the court
can take action to impose the penalty.
B.3 Discretionary Remission :- The court has the discretion to remit
(reduce) a portion of the penalty and enforce payment only for the
remaining amount, implying that forfeiture of the bond by itself does
amount to imposition of the penalty and a specific order has to be
passed for imposing penalty.
B.4 Civil imprisonment in default of payment of penalty If the
penalty imposed is not paid or cannot be recovered, the surety may
be liable for imprisonment in a civil jail for a period up to six
months.
B.5. Surety's death :- If a surety to a bond dies before the bond is
forfeited, his estate is relieved of any liability related to the bond.
B.6. Use of Conviction as evidence :- If a person who has provided
security under section 106 or section 11 or section 360 of the Code 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 sectin 448 of the Code (for a minor), a certified copy of the
court's judgment can be used as evidence against the surety. The
court will presume that the offense was committed by the same
person unless evidence to the contrary is provided."
[2025:RJ-JD:38440] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6744/2025]
6. In light of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the impugned
order directing the forfeiture of the bail-bonds of the petitioner
accused and initiating proceedings against his surety under
Section 446 Cr.P.C., ibid, has to be necessarily set aside. It is so
ordered.
7. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.06.2025 is set
aside. The original bail bonds of the petitioner accused as well as
bonds of his sureties are restored and trial to proceed further, in
accordance with law.
8. Disposed of accordingly.
9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
310-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
