Allahabad High Court
Panna Lal @ Panni Singh vs State Of U.P. on 21 May, 2026
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:117715
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4852 of 2026
Panna Lal @ Panni Singh
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Amitesh Kumar Mishra
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 order dated 08.04.2026 and 16.03.2026, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-04, Bulandshahr, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 192 of 2026 (State Vs. Panna Lal @ Panni Singh), whereby the appellant / surety has been directed to deposit the amount of surety bond and by order dated 16.03.2026 the appellant / surety was sent to jail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. This appeal is being finally decided at the stage of admission itself.
4. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant has stood surety for accused Seetu @ Banti in S.C. No. 3030 of 2023 and submitted a bail bond to the tune of Rs. one lakh. During trial, said accused Seetu @ Banti has absconded and thus, non-bailable warrants were issued against him and a case was registered under Section - 446 Cr.P.C. against appellant and co-surety vide Criminal Misc. No. 192 of 2026 and next date was fixed for 16.03.2026. It was submitted that on 16.03.2026 the appellant has appeared before the trial Court on the very first date of proceedings under section 446 CrPC and sought time to produce the accused or in case of default to deposit the amount of penalty but the said prayer was rejected and on the very same day he was sent to district jail in utter disregard of law. It was submitted that on 08.04.2026 an application was filed on behalf of appellant / surety before the aforesaid Court to reduce the amount of penalty but the same was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 08.04.2026. It is further submitted that meanwhile said accused Seetu @ Banti has surrendered before the trial Court on 23.03.2026 and he was sent to jail but despite that the amount of penalty was not reduced and appellant was illegally sent to district jail by violating all norms of law and that appellant / surety is still in jail. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned orders are illegal and thus liable to be set aside and that a case for dropping the proceedings under Section - 446 Cr.P.C. was made out and that appellant may be released from custody.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal but aforesaid factual position could not be disputed.
6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
7. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to peruse the provisions of Section 446 & 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 :[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, [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.'' 446-A. 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 provision 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 CrPC deals with sureties for breach of bond by the accused, whereas, Section 446-A CrPC deals with the consequences to be faced upon forfeiture of bond and bail bond. A bare perusal of Section 446 CrPC indicates that the Legislature has provided civil and penal consequences in case of forfeiture of the bond. Considering the provisions of section 446 CrPC, in case of Lakhan & Anr V State of U.P. 2024; AHC-LKO: 58166, the Court held as under:
''Scope: Section 446 applies to bonds taken under the Cr.P.C. for ensuring appearance in court or compliance with other conditions. It comes in to play when a surety bond is forfeited, which typically occurs if the conditions of bond are not met.
Court's Discretionary Powers:
Issuing a Warrant: The court has the discretion to issue a warrant for the recovery of the forfeited penalty. This means that if a bond is forfeited, the court can take active steps to recover the penalty amount from the surety.
Opportunity to Be Heard: Before taking any recovery action, the court must give the surety an opportunity to be heard. This ensures that the surety can explain any reasons for their failure to comply with the bond conditions or present any mitigating circumstances.
Show Cause or Order to Pay :
Show Cause: The court may also require the surety to show cause why the penalty should not be paid. This means the surety must provide reasons or evidence as to why they should not be held financially liable for the forfeiture.
Order for Payment: The court may order the surety to pay the forfeited penalty. This order will be issued after considering the surety's explanation and the circumstances surrounding the forfeiture.
Procedure: If the surety fails to show a valid cause or does not pay the penalty, the court can proceed to recover the penalty as if it were a fine imposed under the Cr.P.C. This means that the court can use standard methods for recovering fines to collect the forfeited amount.
Enforcement: The recovery process can include various methods such as attachment of property or other enforcement measures available under the law.
When a bond is forfeited, the court must follow the procedures outlined in Section 446. This includes issuing a warrant for recovery if necessary, giving the surety a chance to explain their non-compliance, and then proceeding with recovery if the surety fails to provide a valid cause.'' When a bond is forfeited, the court must follow the procedures outlined in section 446. This includes issuing a warrant for recovery if necessary, giving surety a chance to explain their non compliance, and then proceeding with recovery if the surety fails to provide a valid cause''
9. Thus, it is well settled that so far sureties of accused are 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 BNSS / CrPC. Therefore for taking action under Section 446 CrPC / 491 BNSS, 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. Similar law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Ghulam Mehdi v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1960 SC 1185: (1960 Cri.L.J. 1527), wherein it was held that notice to show cause is liable to be issued to the surety only to explain as to why he should not be made to pay the amount of the bond already forfeited as penalty.
10. In the instant matter it appears that appellant has stood surety for accused Seetu @ Banti in S.C. No. 3030 of 2023 and he has submitted bail bond in sum of Rs. one lakh. During trial, said accused Seetu @ Banti has absconded and by order dated 28.02.2026 a direction was made for initiation of proceedings under section 446 CrPC. Consequently a misc case under 446 CrPC was registered, however due to overwriting, it is not clear that on which date it was registered. While registering said misc case notice were issued to the sureties of the said accused and next date was fixed for 16.03.2026. It appears that on 16.03.2026 appellant / surety Panna Lal @ Panni Singh has appeared before the Court and sought time to deposit the penalty or to produce the accused but surprisingly his prayer was rejected and on the very same day he was sent to the District Jail for non-deposition of bail bond amount. It appears that meanwhile on 23.03.2026 said accused Seetu @ Banti has surrendered before the trial court and he was sent to jail and thereafter on 08.04.2026 an application was filed on behalf of appellant / surety that to reduce / remit the part of penalty of bond amount but the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 08.04.2026. As per counsel of appellant, the appellant / surety is still in jail in the said proceedings under section 446 CrPC.
11. Apparently the procedure adopted by the learned Trial Court is wholly perverse and the appellant / surety was deprived of personal liberty in an illegal manner and against the position of law. As stated above after registering case under section 446 CrPC, a show cause notice was 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 BNSS / CrPC. In the instant matter no such show cause notice was given and it appears that merely a simple notice for appearrance was issued. Further, if the appellant / surety might have failed to show a valid cause or did not pay the penalty, then the court has to proceed to recover the penalty as if it were a fine imposed under the CrPC and the enforcement of such order has to made in accordance with the procedure as mentioned in above referred case. The question of sending the appellant / surety to civil prison (not district jail) has to arise in the enforcement proceedings, where penalty could not be realised. In the instant case as stated above the appellant / surety was sent to jail on the very first date after registration of case under section 446 CrPC, by rejecting his prayer seeking some time. While deciding the application of appellant / surety, whereby request was made to reduce the amount of penalty, the learned trial court failed to consider the fact that the accused Seetu @ Banti has surrendered before the trial court on 23.03.2026 and he was sent to jail. It appears that on every count and at every stage the trial court has disregarded the position of law.
12. In view of aforesaid facts the impugned orders are set aside and it is directed that in case the appellant / surety is still in custody in relation to said proceedings under section 446 CrPC, the Trial Court shall release the appellant / surety from custody forthwith. The appellant / surety is granted time of 45 days from today to show cause as to why the bail bond amount must not be recovered from him as if it were a fine. Thereafter, the trial Court shall proceed strictly in accordance with law. It is further directed that for a period of 45 days from today and in case the appellant / surety submits his reply / objections within the aforesaid period, till disposal of such objections, no coercive action shall be taken against appellant / surety.
13. Before parting with this order, this Court is constrained to observe that during a period of last few months this Court has come through several orders passed by the concerned presiding officer Dr. Suresh Kumar in proceedings under Section 446 CrPC and in all those matters also it was noticed that the procedure prescribed by law had not been followed by him and orders were passed in arbitrary manner. In the present case the approach of the learned Presiding officer tantamount to ignorance and disobedience of law. Learned Presiding Officer Dr. Suresh Kumar is senior Judicial Officer of the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge but it appears that he lacks judicial approach. He is advised to be careful in future and to follow law in letter and spirit.
14. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
(Raj Beer Singh,J.) May 21, 2026 S Rawat