Satpal vs State Of Haryana

CRM-M-49727-2026 (O&M) -:1:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( 138 ) CRM-M-49727-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.09.2026
SATPAL
… Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
... Respondent
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate along with
Ms. Titiksha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, Addl. AG, Haryana.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973) for quashing
of the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Hisar, in Case No. SC/8/2022,
titled “State of Haryana vs. Raj Kumar Raju etc.”, whereby the petitioner,
who had stood surety for accused Yash Rohilla in FIR No. 694 dated
15.10.2020, under Sections 457/380/411/413/210/120-B IPC, 1860
(corresponding to Sections 331(4)/305/317(2)/317(4)/247/61(2) BNS,
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.07 09:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49727-2026 (O&M) -:2:-
2023), Police Station Barwala, District Hisar, for securing his regular bail
granted vide order dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-1), has been held liable
for forfeiture of the surety bond and saddled with a penalty of ` 1,00,000/-
on account of cancellation of the bail of the said accused and the alleged
non-appearance of the petitioner-surety, notwithstanding that the warrants
issued against the petitioner had been returned “unexecuted”, and a
recovery warrant has further been issued to the learned Collector for
recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue under Section 461
BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 421 Cr.P.C., 1973), the impugned
order being ex facie arbitrary, mechanically passed and vitiated by non-
application of judicial mind.
1.1. It is further prayed that operation and execution of the
impugned order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-3), including the recovery
proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, may kindly be stayed during the
pendency of the present petition, in the interest of justice and to prevent
the petitioner from being subjected to undue and irreparable financial
hardship.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused Yash
Rohilla had regularly appeared before the Trial Court after being granted
regular bail, and his non-appearance on 09.09.2024 was neither wilful nor
deliberate, as he was then confined in judicial custody. His bail was
nevertheless cancelled on the said date. Learned counsel further submits
that the subsequent proceedings belie any deliberate evasion, as the
proclamation was returned with the report of Constable Ram Lal that the
accused was confined in District Jail, Karnal in another case;
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.07 09:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49727-2026 (O&M) -:3:-
consequently, production warrants were issued on 07.03.2025 and he was
produced through video-conferencing before the learned Trial Court on
09.04.2025. It is contended that, despite these circumstances, the
petitioner-surety was proceeded against mechanically, without any finding
of wilful default, and, notwithstanding the warrants against him having
remained unexecuted, was held liable under Section 491 BNSS, 2023
(Section 446 Cr.P.C., 1973), saddled with a penalty of ` 1,00,000/- and
subjected to recovery proceedings under Section 461 BNSS, 2023 (Section
421 Cr.P.C., 1973). The very object of the surety bond having stood
fulfilled upon the accused being traced and produced before the Court,
setting aside of the impugned order has accordingly been prayed for.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Upon advance notice, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, learned
Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent-State and opposes the present petition. It is submitted that the
impugned order suffers from no illegality, perversity or material infirmity
and has been passed by the Trial Court after due consideration of the
factual matrix and the applicable legal principles. Dismissal of the present
petition has, accordingly, been prayed for.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
meticulous scrutiny of the record, this Court finds that the impugned order
dated 20.02.2025 proceeds on the premise that the “ petitioner-surety
Satpal has nothing to say ”. The said observation, however, is wholly
belied by the record. It is an admitted position emerging from the
proceedings that the notice contemplated under Section 446 Cr.P.C. was
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.07 09:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49727-2026 (O&M) -:4:-
never served upon the petitioner-surety and, significantly, even the
warrants issued against him were returned unexecuted . Warrants should
not have been issued against surety. What is warranted under Section 446
Cr.P.C. is a notice to show cause as to why amount of surety be not
imposed as penalty. In case, on service of notice, surety failed to appear,
then it is to be presumed that he has nothing to say and order of penalty
can be passed but no coercive process to procure his presence is
warranted. In the present case since process was unexecuted. In such
circumstances, the petitioner could neither be presumed to have waived his
right to contest the proposed forfeiture nor could his silence be construed
as an absence of defence. The statutory scheme underlying Section 446
Cr.P.C. necessarily postulates that, before a surety is subjected to the penal
consequences of forfeiture of his bond, he must be duly called upon to
show cause and afforded a meaningful and effective opportunity to place
before the Court the circumstances explaining the alleged default. The
recording that the petitioner “ has nothing to say ”, in the complete absence
of service of notice upon him, is thus not merely an irregularity but reflects
a patent failure to comply with the audi alteram partem rule and amounts
to denial of a substantive opportunity of hearing. Since an order of
forfeiture and consequential imposition of penalty under Section 446
Cr.P.C. carries serious civil and pecuniary consequences, strict adherence
to the prescribed procedure and the principles of natural justice assumes
particular significance. An order visiting a surety with such adverse
consequences, without first establishing due service of notice and
affording him an effective opportunity to explain the alleged breach,
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.07 09:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-49727-2026 (O&M) -:5:-
cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. The impugned order, having been
rendered in flagrant disregard of these foundational procedural safeguards
and without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being
heard, suffers from patent illegality and material procedural infirmity and,
consequently, cannot be sustained in law. The same is accordingly set
aside and petition is allowed .
7. In view of the final disposal of the principal proceedings, all
pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising therefrom or ancillary
thereto, shall stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders
are warranted in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
03.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.07 09:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document