Punjab and Haryana High CourtCriminal Procedure and EvidenceCivil Procedure and Evidence

74-Year-Old Grandmother’s Surety Penalty Cut From ₹1 Lakh To ₹20,000; P&H HC Orders Home Recovery Dropped If She Pays Within Six Months

Koshila Deviv.State Of Punjab And Ors

74-Year-Old Grandmother’s Surety Penalty Cut From ₹1 Lakh To ₹20,000; P&H HC Orders Home Recovery Dropped If She Pays Within Six Months. Koshila Devi vs State Of Punjab And Ors. Punjab and Haryana High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the penalty imposed on the petitioner under Section 446 Cr.P.C. should be modified in the circumstances of the case

The court held

The Court modified the Sessions Judge’s order by reducing the penalty from ₹1,00,000 to ₹20,000, payable within six months.

It also directed

If paid within that period, the recovery warrant was to be recalled and any attachment or coercive proceedings against the petitioner’s residential house released or dropped.

If she failed to pay, the Trial Court could proceed in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of subject to these directions.

01Facts

The petitioner, a 74-year-old widowed woman, stood surety for her grandson, Chetan Kainth, in a criminal case. After he failed to appear and was declared a proclaimed offender, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were initiated against her.

pp. 1–3

The Sessions Judge imposed a penalty of ₹1,00,000 and issued recovery warrants through the Collector. The petitioner sought modification, relying on her age, financial hardship, efforts to secure her grandson’s appearance, and the absence of any allegation that she had connived in or facilitated his abscondence.

pp. 1–3

The State opposed the petition, arguing that she had failed to fulfil her obligations as surety.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the penalty imposed on the petitioner under Section 446 Cr.P.C. should be modified in the circumstances of the case

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether coercive recovery against the petitioner’s residential house should be permitted, and whether time should be allowed to deposit any modified penalty

pp. 3–4

03Law Applied

Section 446 Cr.P.C. governs forfeiture of bonds and proceedings against sureties. Although forfeiture entails liability, the court has discretion to remit or modify the penalty in light of the circumstances of the case.

pp. 3–4

Relying on Mohammad Kunju v. State of Karnataka, the Court stated that where there is no material indicating that a surety connived with the accused or knew of the accused’s intention to abscond, the penalty should not be unduly harsh or excessive.

pp. 3–4

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 341Section 379Section 34

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 446

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the petitioner had stood surety and that the accused’s failure to appear led to forfeiture of the bond. However, it found no material showing that she had connived with him or facilitated his abscondence, and noted her stated efforts to secure his presence.

pp. 3–4

Taking account of her age, widowed status, and pleaded financial incapacity, the Court considered a reduced penalty with time to pay sufficient to serve the ends of justice, while protecting her sole residence from coercive recovery.

pp. 3–4

05Holding

The Court modified the Sessions Judge’s order by reducing the penalty from ₹1,00,000 to ₹20,000, payable within six months.

p. 4

If paid within that period, the recovery warrant was to be recalled and any attachment or coercive proceedings against the petitioner’s residential house released or dropped.

p. 4

If she failed to pay, the Trial Court could proceed in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of subject to these directions.

p. 4
Punjab and Haryana High Court

Original Court PDF

Koshila DevivsState Of Punjab And Ors

Punjab and Haryana High Court · November 11, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment