MUNNI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P.

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                               CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3769 of 2026

Munni Devi
                                                                                                        .....Appellant(s)
                                                           Versus

State of U.P.
                                                                                                    .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                                               :      Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)                                              :      G.A.

Court No. - 90
                                 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 495 BNSS with
the following prayer:-

     "It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the

     instant criminal appeal by setting aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by learned Additional

     District and Session Judge Court No. 4 (F.T.C) Bulandshahr in Criminal Misc. Case No. 554 of 2025, (State of

     U.P. Versus Munni Devi), u/s 446 Cr.P.C, Police Station Syana, District Bulandshahr, Session Case No. 4834

     of 2022, (State of U.P. Vs. Liyaqat and Another), arising out from Case Crime No. 102 of 2022, P.S.

     Narsaina, District Bulandshahr) pending in the court of learned Additional District and Session Judge Court

     No. 4 (F.T.C.) Bulandshahr, and further be pleased to discharge the surety from all liability arising out of the

     said order, or pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the

     facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. Otherwise the accused appellant / surety shall

     suffer irreparable loss and injury.”




2. The appeal is being decided finally at the stage of admission

itself.


3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the

State.


4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in Session Trial

No. 4834 of 2022, (State vs. Liyaqat And Another), appellant has

stood one of the surety for accused Liyaqat Ali. During trial said

accused Liyaqat Ali did not appear before the trial Court, hence

non-bailable warrants were issued against him and proceedings
                                                                                                 CRLA No. 3769 of 2026
                                                    2


under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the appellant /

surety in pursuance of order dated 22.07.2025. It was further

submitted that later on recovery warrants have been issued against

the appellant and meanwhile said accused Liyaqat Ali has already

surrendered before the trial Court and he was sent to jail. Learned

counsel submitted that as the accused has already surrendered

before the trial court, thus the appellant may be discharged from

proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. and the impugned order is

liable to 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
                                                                                               CRLA No. 3769 of 2026
                                                      3

    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. (section 491 in BNSS) deals

with sureties for breach of bond by the accused, whereas, Section

- 446-A Cr.P.C. (section 492 in BNSS) 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.
                                                   CRLA No. 3769 of 2026
                            4


9. In the instant matter, it appears that appellant has stood surety

for accused Liyaqat Ali in the aforesaid case. During trial said

accused Liyaqat Ali has not appeared before the trial Court on

some dates, due to which non-bailable warrants were issued

against him and the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were

initiated against the appellant /surety. It was shown that the

impugned proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were initiated

vide order dated 22.07.2025 and after that accused Liyaqat Ali has

surrendered before the trial Court on 13.10.2025 and he was sent

to jail. In view of these facts and circumstance, the matter

regarding forfeiture of bail bonds and recovery of bail bond amount

has to be considered leniently. As per provisions of Section 446(3)

Cr.P.C./ 491(3) BNSS, the Court may remit any portion of penalty

to be imposed in pursuance of forfeiture of bail bonds. As the

accused has already surrendered before the trial Court, thus ends

of justice would met if the amount of penalty, imposed by the trial

Court pursuant to forfeiture of bail bonds, be reduced from Rs.

30,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- towards the appellant / surety.


10. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellant / surety shall

deposit an amount of Rs 5,000/- in the proceedings of forfeiture of

her bail bond. The impugned order stands altered to this extent.

The appellant is directed to deposit the said amount within a period

of 40 days from today. It is further directed that for a period of 40

days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against

appellant / surety. On deposition of said amount, the impugned

order qua the appellant would stand set aside and proceedings of
                                                                                    CRLA No. 3769 of 2026
                                                               5


                                    aforesaid miscellaneous case under section 446 CrPC against the

                                    appellant would stand disposed of. In case the said amount of Rs

                                    5,000/- is not deposited by the appellant / surety, the impugned

                                    order and proceedings shall remain effective.


                                    11. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.



                                                                                    (Raj Beer Singh,J.)
                                    April 27, 2026
                                    Anand




Digitally signed by :-
ANAND VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad