Awadh Bihari Singh vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-64193-2026 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
127
CRM-M-64193-2026
Date of decision: 12.11.2026
AWADH BIHARI SINGH ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present:- Mr. Omkar Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. AG, Haryana.
*
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been instituted under Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 against the order dated
05.09.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, in
Criminal Misc. Application No.CRM/824/2026, in FIR No.02 dated
07.01.2021, registered under Sections 302, 201, 364, 394, 120-B, and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police
Station Sadar Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, whereby an application filed
on behalf of the petitioner-surety seeking his discharge and release/refund of
the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) bearing No.41900867511 dated
₹
08.05.2023 for 1,00,000/- and appropriate orders under Section 446
Cr.P.C., was dismissed. Vide earlier order dated 05.02.2026, a penalty of
₹
1,00,000/- had been imposed upon the petitioner-surety and directions were
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-64193-2026 -2-
issued to the concerned bank to encash and deposit the proceeds of the said
FDR in Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State
counsel have been heard and material placed on file has been perused.
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 Rahul was granted regular bail vide
order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court and the petitioner
had stood surety for the accused and had furnished surety bond in the sum of
₹
1,00,000/- on 09.05.2023 and had also furnished an FDR bearing No.
₹
41900867511 dated 08.05.2023 for a sum of 1,00,000/- before the Court
concerned. Learned counsel contended that the accused was regularly
appearing until 05.08.2025, on which date his application for exemption
from personal appearance was dismissed and his bail was cancelled and
bonds were forfeited to the State and notice was issued to the petitioner-
surety. Learned counsel contended that upon receipt of notice, the petitioner
appeared before the learned Trial Court on 19.01.2026 and sought 10-15
days’ time to produce the accused. However, vide order dated 05.02.2026,
the learned Trial Court initiated ex parte proceedings against the petitioner
₹
and imposed the penalty of 1,00,000/- and directed the Bank Manager,
State Bank of India, Sector-11, Faridabad, to encash and deposit the FDR
proceeds in Court. Learned counsel further submits that subsequently, on
13.05.2026, accused Rahul was produced before the learned Trial Court in
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-64193-2026 -3-
custody pursuant to production warrants from Mandoli Jail, Delhi, where he
had been apprehended in another case and was taken into custody in the
present case as well. Learned counsel 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 and that non-
appearance of the accused was due to his detention in custody in another
case. Learned counsel next contended that the petitioner is an elderly person
aged about 63 years, whose financial condition is severely distressed on
account of heavy medical expenses incurred towards the treatment of his
wife, who is suffering from cancer (Carcinoma Cervix Stage IIB) and
undergoing treatment at Amrita Hospital, Faridabad, as substantiated by
medical records placed on file. Learned counsel next contended that the
primary object of the surety bond was to secure the presence of the accused,
which stands substantially achieved upon his rearrest and the learned Trial
Court erred in dismissing the application solely on the technical ground that
the FDR amount has already been realized. Learned counsel 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. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon Law
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
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-64193-2026 -4-
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, resulting in the realization of the
bond amount in accordance with law and prayed that the present petition,
being devoid of merit, be dismissed.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had stood surety for
accused Rahul, who subsequently failed to appear before the learned Trial
Court on 05.08.2025, 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 record reveals that the accused could not appear
as he was subsequently confined in custody in another criminal matter at
Mandoli Jail, Delhi, wherefrom he was produced before the learned Trial
Court on 13.05.2026 in execution of production warrants and is presently in
custody and is facing trial. 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 under sub-section (3) of Section 446
Cr.P.C. 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.
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-64193-2026 -5-
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled legal position, the absence
of any collusion on the part of the petitioner, his advanced age of 63 years,
the medical condition of his wife who is undergoing cancer treatment, the
consequential financial distress pleaded by the petitioner and the fact that the
presence of accused has already been secured and is in judicial custody, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be
adequately served by modifying and remitting the penalty amount.
7. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 05.09.2026 and
05.02.2026 are modified to the extent that the penalty amount is reduced
₹ ₹
from 1,00,000/- to 15,000/-. Since the entire FDR proceeds amounting to
₹
1,00,000/- have already been realized and deposited in the Court vide
Demand Draft No.997468 dated 03.04.2026, learned Trial Court is directed
₹
to adjust the reduced penalty amount of 15,000/- out of the deposited sum
₹
and refund the balance amount of 85,000/- to the petitioner-surety, Awadh
Bihari Singh, after due verification, within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Subject to the aforesaid
modification, the present petition stands partly allowed and disposed of.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
12.11.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
Priyanka Thakur JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.13 18:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document