CRM-M- IN 178 Dharambir v. State of Ha CORAM: Present: AARADHN 1. 27.7.2022 Palwal in S whereby a of Code of the recove Collector, P 2. noticed her Mahesh, un Arms Act, and later -16978-2026 -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGA ambir of Haryana AM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AA Mr. Ankur Kaushik, Advocate Ms. Shweta Nahata, DAG, Ha **** ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) Present petition has been filed 2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by lea in Sessions Case No.216/2020, title eby a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was im ode of Criminal Procedure. Further, p recovery notice dated 14.1.2026 (An ctor, Palwal. Relevant facts as emerging fr ed hereinbelow:- FIR No. 108 dated 06.04.202 under Sections 452, 34, 323, 307 Act, at Police Station Chandhut, Pa ter on was granted regular bail 1- PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH CRM-M-16978-2026 Date of Decision: 01.04.2026 …Petitioner. …Respondent. CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. vocate for the petitioner. G, Haryana. n filed against the impugned order date by learned Additional Sessions Judg , titled “State v. Kailash and another as imposed upon the petitioner u/s 44 ther, prayer has been made for quashin 6 (Annexure P-9) issued by Distri ging from the documents on record b .2020 registered against Kailash an 307 of IPC and Section 25, 54, 59 t, Palwal. Said Mahesh was arreste ail by this Court vide order date .2026 er dated Judge, nother”, 446 uashing District cord be h and , 59 of rested dated GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.01 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 11.9.2020 as a surety Rs.1 lakh, started app inferred fr accused M Judge canc forfeited to dated 04. procured b Section 44 petitioner. imposed p (Annexure Collector of the said 3. could not a case bearin Faridabad. 22.10.2023 had stood involved in with any o passed, vid counsel als Section 44 opportunity afforded an -16978-2026 -2 20 (Annexure P-2). Pursuant to the rety for accused Mahesh and on fur kh, accused Mahesh was released appearing before the learned trial C d from documents on record th Mahesh did not appear in the Co cancelled his bail, the bail and s d to the State and notice was issue .08.2021 (Annexure P-4). Prese ed by way of non-bailable warrants 446 of Code of Criminal Proce ner. Since, petitioner had furnished d penalty of Rs.1 lakh vide im ure P-5) and recovery warrants to effect the recovery and deposi said proceedings, petitioner filed the Learned counsel for the petitio not appear before the Court as he w bearing FIR No. 316 of 2022 and was abad. His presence was secured t .2023. Continuing further, learned co tood surety for aforesaid Mahesh was lved in another case. Learned counsel next submits any opportunity of personal hearing d, vide which a penalty of Rs.1,00,000 sel also submits that in sync with th on 446 of Code of Criminal Proc rtunity of expressing his view point, ded an opportunity to produce Mahes 2- o the aforesaid order, petitioner stoo n furnishing surety bond in the sum sed from custody. Accused Mahes rial Court regularly. It can further b that subsequently on 04.08.202 e Court. Consequently, learned tri nd surety bonds were cancelled an issued to petitioner-surety vide ord resence of Mahesh was sought to b ants. Besides this, proceedings und ocedure were initiated against th hed surety bonds of Rs.1 lakh, he wa impugned order dated 27.7.202 nts were sent to concerned Distri posit the amount in Court. Aggrieve the present petition. petitioner submits that accused Mahes s he was in judicial custody in anoth d was confined in District Jail, Neemk red through production warrants o rned counsel contends that petition wh sh was not aware that Mahesh had bee ubmits that petitioner was not afforde earing before the impugned order wa ,00,000/- was imposed on him. Learne ith the spirit of statutory provision o l Procedure, apart from affording a point, the petitioner should have bee Mahesh. However, learned Addition stood sum of ahesh her be .2021, d trial d and order to be under st the e was .2022 istrict rieved Mahesh another eemka, ants on ion who ad been afforded der was Learned ision of ding an een ditional GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.01 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Sessions Ju the impugn punishment onerous, pe upon him; t 446(3) of remit a po learned cou view be tak reliance up State of Ra in Bhim S 12.7.2024. 4. prayer mad petition. 5. the docume 6. Code of Cr -16978-2026 -3 ions Judge, Palwal without hearing th pugned order. It is further the submissio shment of imposing penalty of the en , petitioner being poor labourer w ; the attached land being his only Continuing further, learned co 3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the t a portion of the penalty imposed. ed counsel that in view of the argumen be taken in favour of the petitioner an In support of his submissio nce upon the judgment of Hon’ble Sup f Rajasthan, AIR 1960 (SC) 1185, im Singh v. State of Haryana, C 2024. Per Contra, learned State cou r made by learned counsel for petition I have heard learned counsel ocuments on record. Before proceeding further, le of Criminal Procedure (Section 491 o “446. Procedure when bond “(1) XX XX (2) XX XX 3- ring the petitioner, straightway passe mission of learned counsel that th the entire amount of Rs.1 lakh is to urer whose entire family is depende s only source of income. ned counsel submits that under Sectio re, the Court has discretionary power osed. It is further the submission o rguments advanced hereinabove, lenie and the penalty amount be reduced missions, learned counsel has place le Supreme Court in Ghulam Mehdi 185, and Division Bench of this Cou a, CRA-S-309-SB-2002 decided o te counsel has vehemently opposed th etitioner and prayed for dismissal of th unsel for the parties and have peruse her, let us go through Section 446 o 491 of BNSS), which reads as under: bond has been forfeited- XX XX passed hat the h is too pendent Section ower to ssion of , lenient educed. placed ehdi v. is Court ided on osed the al of the perused 446 of under:- GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.01 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- has discreti aforesaid S any portion the followin 7. petitioner lakh is redu passed by accordingly consequent 8. 01.04.2026 gbs -16978-2026 -4 (3) The Court may, at its dis penalty mentioned and enforce A bare perusal of the said pro iscretionary power to remit a portion said Section, at any stage of the proce ortion thereof remains unenforced. R ollowing judgments:- (i) Balraj S. Kapoor v. Bombay 365. (ii) Sualal Mushilal v. St 231. In view of the submissions r ioner and taking a lenient view of the m is reduced to Rs.50,000/- only. The d by learned Additional Sessions rdingly. On deposit of the aforesa equential proceedings arising therefrom Petition stands disposed of in t .2026 Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 4- its discretion, remit any portion of th nforce payment in part only.” aid provision makes it clear that Cou ortion of penalty so imposed under th proceedings, so long as the payment o ed. Reliance in this regard is placed o r v. State of Bombay, AIR 195 v. State, AIR 1957 Madhya Prades ions raised by learned counsel for th f the matter, the penalty amount of Rs . The impugned order dated 27.7.202 sions Judge, Palwal stands modifie aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/-, a refrom, shall stand quashed. of in the above terms. (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No n of the at Court der the ment of laced on 1954 adesh for the of Rs.1 .2022 odified , all EY) GURBACHAN SINGH 2026.05.01 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document