[2025:RJ-JP:24501] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3578/2025 Nasib Khan Son Of Shri Bhonda, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Village Kakrali, Tehsil And District Alwar (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Chand Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 03/07/2025 1. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS in order to challenge the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Alwar and 17.05.2025 passed by the revisional Court in criminal revision petition. 2. Brief facts of the matter are that in a case under Section 138 of NI Act, when bail was granted to Smt. Kiran Bala on the condition of submitting bail bonds, the petitioner stood as her surety and furnished bail bonds for Rs. 80,000/-. 3. However, when the accused Kiran Bala absconded and was not appearing before the Court, the bail bonds were forfeited and accordingly proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. was opened. Pursuant thereto notices were received by the petitioner and since the petitioner failed to ensure presence of accused Kiran Bala, therefore, while proceeding further in the proceedings under [2025:RJ-JP:24501] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3578/2025] Section 446 of Cr.P.C., recovery warrants were issued against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is aging 75 years and is also suffering from cancer. He has furnished all the details available with him in order to disclose whereabouts of the accused Kiran Bala, however, on account of the reasons best known to the authorities, she could not be arrested. 5. Learned counsel further submits that against the order passed by the trial Court, revision petition was filed by the petitioner, however, the revision petition has also been dismissed with the findings that it was the duty of the surety to ensure the presence of accused before the Court and in default thereof, proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. have rightly been adopted by the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment dated 03.02.2017 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 165/2017 (Chiman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan) in which in the similar circumstances, where on account of absconding of the accused, bail bonds were forfeited and proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. were opened against the surety, this Court has reduced the penalty from Rs. 40,000/- to 10,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for granting the similar relief. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hukam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 613/2010, where also penalty was reduced. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal misc. petition. [2025:RJ-JP:24501] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3578/2025] 8. I have examined the record and heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner carefully. 9. Although, this Court does not find any error in the orders passed by the learned Courts below and the orders are strictly in accordance with the spirit and scope of Section 446 of Cr.P.C. However, looking to the age and ailing health of the petitioner, in quite peculiar circumstances in the light of judgments relied upon by the petitioner, it would be in the in the interest of justice to modify the impugned orders by reducing the penalty of Rs. 80,000/- as imposed by learned trial Court to Rs. 20,000/-. 10. The petitioner is directed to deposit the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- within a period of seven days from today. The orders dated 29.04.2025 & 17.05.2025 passed by the Courts below stand modified as above. 11. In view of above directions, the criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /75