Koshila Devi vs State Of Punjab And Ors

CRM-M-64067-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
126
CRM-M-64067-2026
Date of decision: 11.11.2026
KOSHILA DEVI ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present:- Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate with
Ms. Vibha Nagar, Advocate and
Mr. Lovepreet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
*
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been instituted against the order dated
31.07.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar, in Criminal
Misc. Application No. CRM/94/2025, titled State of Punjab v. Koshlia Devi,
Surety , arising out of FIR No. 63 dated 14.07.2023, registered under Sections
341, 379-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Sadar
Banga, District SBS Nagar, whereby proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C.,
1973 were initiated against the petitioner-surety, Koshila Devi. Vide impugned
₹
order, a penalty of 1,00,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner and recovery
warrants for realization of the penalty amount through the Collector, SBS
Nagar, have been issued.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel
have been heard and material placed on file has been perused.
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-64067-2026 -2-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned
order is legally unsustainable, having been passed without proper appreciation
of the facts and the material available on record. Learned counsel contended
that the accused Chetan Kainth was granted bail vide order dated 14.09.2023
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar and the petitioner
had stood surety for accused on 20.09.2023 before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, SBS Nagar, purely on account of her close familial relationship,
being his 74-year-old widowed maternal grandmother ( nani ). Learned counsel
contended that after the accused absented from the proceedings and was
declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 07.02.2025, the petitioner
repeatedly appeared before the learned Trial Court on 17.05.2025 and
subsequent dates, expressing that she was making sincere efforts to trace her
grandson and secure his presence before the Court. Learned counsel further
submits that there is neither any allegation nor any material on record to
suggest that the petitioner had connived with the accused or had facilitated his
abscondence. Learned counsel next contended that petitioner is an aged, ailing
widow having limited resources, and the property sought to be attached is her
sole residential home and the imposition of the entire surety amount of
₹
1,00,000/- as penalty and initiating coercive recovery against her residential
house is grossly excessive and disproportionate. Learned counsel next
contended that in the absence of any finding regarding collusion, negligence, or
deliberate breach on the part of the petitioner, the impugned order deserves to
be set aside or, in the alternative, the penalty imposed deserves to be
substantially reduced and coercive steps against her residential house be
dropped. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon Law
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-64067-2026 -3-
Finder Doc ID #32740, Mohammed Kunju Vs. State of Karnataka and Law
Finder Doc ID #2076701, Istkar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and
another.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the
petitioner had voluntarily undertaken the responsibility of ensuring the
presence of the accused before the Court and had failed to discharge the
obligations arising out of the surety bond and further prayed that the present
petition, being devoid of merit, be dismissed.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had stood surety for the
accused Chetan Kainth, who subsequently failed to appear before the learned
Trial Court, resulting in forfeiture of the surety bond and initiation of
proceedings under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
However, at the same time, there is nothing on record to indicate that the
petitioner had connived with the accused or had, in any manner, facilitated his
abscondence. Rather, the petitioner has consistently maintained that she had
made sincere efforts to secure the presence of the accused before the Court.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Kunju’s case (supra), while
interpreting the scope of Section 446 Cr.P.C., has held that although forfeiture
of the bond entails liability on the part of the surety, the Court possesses the
discretion to remit or modify the penalty depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. It has been observed that where there is no material
to suggest that the surety had connived with the accused or had knowledge of
his intention to abscond, the penalty imposed should not be unduly harsh or
excessive.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled legal position, the absence
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-64067-2026 -4-
of any finding of collusion on the part of the petitioner, her advanced age of 74
years, her widowed status and the fact that the petitioner has pleaded financial
incapacity to deposit the entire penalty amount immediately, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately served by
modifying the penalty amount and granting the petitioner reasonable time to
deposit the same, while shielding her sole residential shelter from coercive
recovery.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.07.2026 is modified to
₹
the limited extent that the penalty amount is reduced from 1,00,000/- to
₹
20,000/- and the petitioner shall deposit the same before the learned Trial
Court within a period of six months from today. Upon deposit of the said
amount within the stipulated period, the warrant for realization of penalty
issued through the Collector, SBS Nagar, shall stand recalled and any
attachment or coercive proceedings against the petitioner's residential house
shall stand released/dropped. In the event of her failure to deposit the said
amount within the stipulated period, learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to
proceed further in accordance with law. Subject to the aforesaid modification,
the present petition stands disposed of.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
11.11.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
Priyanka Thakur JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 17:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document