Allahabad High Court

HIRDESH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: RAJ BEER SINGH

Holding

The appellate court exercised its discretion under Section 491 BNSS to remit the forfeiture penalty to Rs 5,000 each, directing payment within three weeks.

Summary

The appellants, Hirdesh and another, were accused under Sections 103(2), 352 and 115(2) BNS in a session trial and were ordered to forfeit personal bonds of Rs 1 lakh each after being absent when a witness was called on 04‑04‑2026. They sought an adjournment and later applied for recall of the forfeiture order, which the trial court rejected on 06‑04‑2026. The appellants contended that the forfeiture was arbitrary and that they were denied a hearing, invoking Section 491 BNSS which allows the court to remit the penalty. The High Court examined the provisions of Sections 491 and 492 BNSS (reincarnations of Cr.P.C. 446 and 446‑A) and held that the court has discretion to reduce the penalty. Accordingly, the court reduced the forfeiture amount to Rs 5,000 each, directing payment within three weeks, and altered the impugned orders. The appeal was disposed of on these terms.

Issues considered

Whether the forfeiture of personal bonds without a hearing violates the provisions of Section 491 BNSS.
Whether the trial court erred in ordering the full forfeiture amount of Rs 1 lakh per appellant.
Whether the appellate court can remit the penalty under Section 491(3) BNSS.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 491, 492, 495
Cr.P.C. — s. 446, 446-A

Subjects

bond forfeiture
personal bond
Section 491 BNSS
Section 492 BNSS
criminal procedure
appeal
remission of penalty
hearing requirement

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4469 of 2026

Hirdesh And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

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

Court No. - 90

HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

1. Learned counsel for the appellants is permitted to make correction in the
prayer clause of the appeal during course of the day.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section - 495 BNSS against
orders dated 04.04.2026 and 06.04.2026, passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Kasganj, in Sessions Case No. 834 of 2025 (State Vs. Hirdesh and Others),
arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2015, under Sections - 103(2), 352,
115(2) BNS, Police Station - Sidhpura, District - Kasganj, whereby the
appellants/accused were directed to deposit the amount of Rs. one lakh in
pursuance to forfeiture of their personal bonds.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.

4. This appeal is being finally decided at the stage of admission itself.

5. It was submitted by learned counsel for appellants that impugned order is
against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. Appellants are accused
in the aforesaid session trial. On 03.04.2026 examination-in-chief of P.W.-2
Prempal was recorded but the counsel of appellants/accused has sought an
CRLA No. 4469 of 2026
2

adjournment, which was allowed at costs of Rs. 1,000/- against each of the
accused and matter was fixed for 04.04.2026 for cross examination of P.W.-
2 Prempal. Learned counsel submitted that on 04.04.2026 the
appellants/accused were present before the trial Court and when case was
called, they have gone to call their counsel but meanwhile the trial Court has
forfeited the personal bonds of appellants-accused as well as surety bonds of
sureties and matter was fixed for 11.05.2026. It is further submitted that on
06.04.2026 appellants/accused have filed an application before the learned
trial Court for recall of order dated 04.04.2026 but the same has been
rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 06.04.2026. Referring
to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned orders are arbitrary
and that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellants/accused
before forfeiture of their personal bonds and thus, impugned order is liable
to be set aside.

6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal and submitted that there is no
illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

8. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to peruse the provisions of
Section - 491 and 492 BNSS, which are reincarnation of section 446 & 446-
A Cr.P.C. read as under :-

''491. Procedure when bond has been forfeited.-(1) Where,-

a bond under this Sanhita 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

(b) in respect of any other bond under this Sanhita, 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.
CRLA No. 4469 of 2026
3

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 Sanhita:

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 125 or section 136 or
section 401 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 494,
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."

"492. Cancellation of bond and bail bond. - Without prejudice to the provisions of
section 491, where a bond or bail bond under this Sanhita 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 Sanhita 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."

9. Essentially Section - 491 BNSS deals with sureties for breach of bond by
the accused, whereas, Section - 492 BNSS deals with the consequences to be
faced by accused upon forfeiture of bond (personal bond).

10. In the instant matter, it appears from record that appellants are accused in
the aforesaid case and that on 03.04.2026 witness P.W.-2 Prempal was
present before the trial Court but the counsel of accused persons has sought
CRLA No. 4469 of 2026
4

adjournment, which was allowed at the costs of Rs. 1,000/- each against
each of the accused and case was fixed for 04.04.2026. On 04.04.2026, the
trial Court has observed that by 11:30 AM accused persons were absent and
witness P.W.-2 Prempal was present and that amount of costs has also not
been paid and thus, personal bonds of appellants/accused were forfeited.
Appellants/accused have filed an application before the trial Court for recall
of said order, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated
06.04.2026. In view of attending facts, the order regarding recovery of
whole amount of personal bonds appears harsh and arbitrary. As per
provisions of Section - 491(3) BNSS, the Court, after recording reasons, has
power to remit any power of penalty and enforce payment in part only.

11. Considering aforesaid facts of the matter, the penalty of personal bond
amount is reduced to amount of Rs. 5,000/- each. The appellants/accused are
directed to deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- each within a period of three weeks
from today. On deposition of said amount, the proceedings under Section -
491 / 492 BNSS, qua the appellants, would stand disposed of. Impugned
orders stand altered to that extent. It is further directed that for a period of
three weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the
appellants / accused regarding recovery of bail bond amount. In case
appellants failed to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,000/- each within
the aforesaid period, the impugned orders passed by the trial Court shall
remain effective and operative.

12. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.

May 6, 2026
S Rawat

(Raj Beer Singh,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
SHOBHIT RAWAT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…