PANNA LAL @ PANNI SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9259 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. - 89
                    HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 495 BNSS
against judgment and order dated 14.07.2026, passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C.-4, Bulandshahr in Criminal Misc. Case
No.192 of 2026 (State Vs. Panna Lal), P.S.- Pahasu, District-
Bulandshahr, whereby the appellant has been directed to deposit bail bond
amount of rupees one lakh in pursuance to forfeiture of bail bond.


2. This 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 the appellant has stood
surety for accused Seetu @ Banti @ Viresh in case S.C. No.3030/ 2023
and during trial the said accused has absconded and thus non-bailable
warrants were issued against him and proceedings under Section 446
Cr.P.C. were initiated against appellant and co-surety Hemwati Devi. It
was submitted that now said accused Seetu @ Banti @ Viresh has
surrendered before the trial Court on 23.03.2026 and since then he is in
judicial custody and his bail application has also been rejected. It was
stated that the financial condition of appellant is not well and that as
accused has already surrendered before the trial Court, thus the amount of
surety bond to be recovered from appellant, may be reduced.
                                                                                                                 CRLA No. 9259 of 2026
                                                               2




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 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 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."




8. In the instant matter, it appears from record that appellant was surety
for accused Seetu @ Banti @ Viresh in SC No.3030/2023 case State Vs
Seetu @ Banti and appellant has submitted bail bond in sum of rupees one
                                                                                            CRLA No. 9259 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    lakh. During trial said accused has absconded and thus warrants were
                                    issued against him. It was shown that now said accused Seetu @ Banti @
                                    Viresh has surrendered before the trial Court on 23.03.2026 and since
                                    then he is in judicial custody. As per provisions of Section 446(3) Cr.P.C./
                                    491(3) BNSS, the Court has power to remit any portion of penalty
                                    imposed on forfeiture of bail bond. In the present case considering the
                                    fact that said accused has already surrendered before the trial Court, it
                                    would be just and proper that amount of surety bond to be recovered from
                                    the appellant, be reduced.


                                    9. Considering entire facts, it is directed that the appellant/ surety shall
                                    deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/ before the trial Court within 45 days
                                    from today. It is directed that for a period of 45 days from today, no
                                    coercive action shall taken against appellant. On deposition of aforesaid
                                    amount within the aforesaid period, the proceedings under Section 446
                                    Cr.P.C. against appellant would stand disposed of. In case the said
                                    amount of Rs 50,000/- is not deposited by the appellant / surety within the
                                    aforesaid period, the impugned order and proceedings shall remain
                                    effective and operative. The impugned order stand altered accordingly.


                                    10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.


                                    September 29, 2026
                                    'SP'/-                                                 (Raj Beer Singh,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP PAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad