With No Collusion, Accused Back In Custody And Wife Under Cancer Treatment, P&H HC Cuts Surety’s Penalty To ₹15,000 And Orders ₹85,000 Refund

In brief

The question

Whether the penalty imposed on the petitioner-surety under Section 446 CrPC should be reduced where there was no material showing collusion and the accused had been secured in custody.

The court held

The petition was partly allowed. The orders dated 5 February 2026 and 5 September 2026 were modified, reducing the penalty from ₹1,00,000 to ₹15,000.

It also directed

The Trial Court was directed to retain ₹15,000 from the deposited FDR proceeds and refund the remaining ₹85,000 to the petitioner, after verification, within one month of receiving a certified copy of the order.

01Facts

The petitioner stood surety for accused Rahul and furnished a ₹1,00,000 surety bond and FDR. After Rahul failed to appear on 5 August 2025, the bond was forfeited and proceedings under Section 446 CrPC were initiated.

pp. 1–3, 5

The Trial Court imposed a penalty of ₹1,00,000 and directed encashment of the FDR. Rahul was later produced from custody in another case and remained in judicial custody.

pp. 1–3, 5

The petitioner sought discharge and refund, stating there was no collusion and citing his financial hardship and his wife’s cancer treatment. The Trial Court dismissed his application, leading to this petition.

pp. 1–3, 5

02Issues

i.Whether the penalty imposed on the petitioner-surety under Section 446 CrPC should be reduced where there was no material showing collusion and the accused had been secured in custody.

pp. 3–6

ii.Whether the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the balance of the amount realized from the FDR after reduction of the penalty.

p. 7

03Law Applied

Section 446(3) CrPC gives the court discretion to remit or reduce a penalty imposed following forfeiture of a bond, having regard to the circumstances of the case.

p. 4

In Mohammad Kunju v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court recognized that, although forfeiture creates liability for the surety, the penalty should not be unduly harsh where there is no material suggesting the surety colluded with the accused or knew of an intention to abscond.

p. 4

The petition was brought under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, read with Section 482 CrPC.

p. 1

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 446

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 Section 201 Section 364 Section 394 Section 34

Arms Act, 1959 Section 25

04Reasoning

The Court found no evidence that the petitioner had colluded with Rahul or facilitated his non-appearance. The record instead showed that Rahul was in custody in another matter and was later produced before the Trial Court; his presence had therefore been secured.

p. 5

Applying the discretion recognized under Section 446(3) CrPC, the Court considered the absence of collusion, the petitioner’s age, his wife’s cancer treatment, the resulting financial hardship, and Rahul’s custody. It concluded that reducing the penalty would adequately serve the ends of justice.

pp. 5–6