Allahabad High Court
Bijendra And Another vs State Of U.P. Though It Principal ... on 10 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:79252 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14832 of 2024 Bijendra And Another .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Atul Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.K.Singh, learned AGA for the State as also perused the record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to set aside the impugned order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar in Misc. Criminal Revision No. 08 of 2022 (Bijendra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) as well as order dated 12.01.2022 passed by Learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Budhana, Muzaffar Nagar, Muzaffar Nagar, in Case No. 02140 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Kuldeep and Others) Under Section 122 Cr.P.C. Police Station Shahpur District Muzaffar Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that proceedings under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. were initiated against them in Case Crime No. 02140 of 2021 (State of U.P. vs. Kuldeep and others) in connection with the Panchayat elections. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners were directed to furnish personal bonds of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The said directions were issued on 09.01.2021 and were duly complied with by the petitioners. It was submitted that the personal bonds and sureties required to be furnished under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. are for a specific and limited purpose, namely, to ensure maintenance of peace and good behaviour during the period of the Panchayat elections. The said elections concluded on 19.04.2021. However, despite the conclusion of the elections, the personal bonds of the petitioners were forfeited by the learned SDM under Section 122 Cr.P.C. on the basis of a criminal case registered as Case Crime No. 165 of 2021, under Sections 147, 149, 307 IPC, Police Station Shivpur, District Muzaffar Nagar.
4. It is contended that the bonds were forfeited on the ground that the petitioners had breached the conditions of the bond and disturbed public peace. It is further submitted that the trial in the said criminal case has commenced and the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, it is argued that forfeiture of the personal bonds after the conclusion of the election period, and on the basis of an alleged incident occurring thereafter, is illegal and unsustainable in law.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned SDM had no authority to forfeit the bonds after the conclusion of the election period on the basis of an incident which allegedly took place thereafter. Accordingly, the order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the learned SDM under Section 122 Cr.P.C. in Case Crime No. 02140 of 2021 is liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that the aforesaid order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 8 of 2022 (Bijendra and another vs. State of U.P. and another), but the revisional court also erred in affirming the order dated 12.01.2022. Hence, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
6. Learned AGA submitted that neither of the impugned orders suffers from any illegality. It is contended that bonds furnished under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. remain in force for a period of six months. The petitioners furnished their bonds on 22.03.2021, and the alleged offence in Case Crime No. 165 of 2021 occurred on 17.05.2021, i.e., within the subsistence period of the bond. The said incident clearly indicates that the petitioners violated the conditions of the bond, justifying its forfeiture under Section 122 Cr.P.C.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is apparent from the order dated 19.10.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 8 of 2022 that the revisional court has duly considered the issue relating to Case Crime No. 165 of 2021. The revisional court has observed that a final report was submitted exonerating certain accused persons, though it is not specifically indicated whether the present petitioners were among those exonerated. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the witnesses in the trial have turned hostile.
8. The fact that witnesses have turned hostile or that a final report has been submitted in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed within six months from the date of execution of the bond, in proceedings under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C., shall not exonerate a person who has furnished such bond under Sections 107/116 Cr.P.C. The object of such proceedings is preventive in nature, intended to ensure that a person does not disturb public peace and tranquillity during the specified period. If, during the subsistence of the bond, any incident occurs which prima facie indicates breach of the conditions of the bond, the competent authority is not required to await the final outcome of the criminal trial before taking action under Section 122 Cr.P.C. The authority is well within its jurisdiction to forfeit the bond upon being satisfied of such breach.
9. In view of the above, this Court finds that the order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the learned SDM and order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the revisional court do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference.
10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.) April 10, 2026 Ujjawal