1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2008 of 2025 1 - Deepak Kumar S/o Jagdish Sahu, Aged About 41 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 36 Years In The Cause Title Of The Impugned Order), R/o Village - Sorid, P.S. - Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - Borai, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 06.10.2025 1. This is an appeal under Section 495 of Bharitya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the appellant against the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Dhamtari in MJC No. 01/2020 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 446 (1) of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected and the amount of surety is ordered to be forfeited. 2. The facts in brief is that the appellant is the surety of the accused Shailesh Vijay Rathore in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No. 89/2018. The appellant has produced himself to be a surety of the said accused for releasing him on 2 bail vide order dated 04.04.2019 from the offence under Section 420 of IPC and Section 20 (b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act. The amount of surety is Rs. 1 Lakh and the accused was ordered to be released on bail for furnishing two solvent sureties of Rs. 1 Lakh each by this Court vide order dated 04.04.2019 passed in MCRC No. 1902/2019. On the surety furnished by the present appellant as well as another surety, the appellant was released on bail. Since, the appellant could not appear in the proceeding before the learned trial court, the bail bond of the accused was forfeited on 27.02.2020 and separate proceeding under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against the appellant and show cause notice was issued. Since, it was the time of Covid-19 pandemic, the case was remain pending and another notice against the appellant was issued on 07.09.2021 and when the appellant failed to appear on the date of 09.11.2021, the attachment warrant was directed to be issued against the appellant for attachment of his movable property. On 05.04.2022, the appellant appeared before the learned trial Court and submitted his reply with the prayer that he is a poor person and unable to pay Rs. 1 Lakh and therefore, the attachment warrant issued against him may be cancelled. The prayer made by the appellant was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 19.04.2022. The said order dated 19.04.2022 was challenged by the appellant in Cr.A. No. 794/2022 before this Court in which after hearing the parties, final order has been passed on 27.03.2025, allowing the appeal and remitted the matter back to the learned trial Court to proceed in accordance with law and to pass fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The matter was again taken up by the learned trial Court and after issuing the fresh show cause notice to the appellant and after hearing him passed the order on 28.07.2025 forfeiting the amount of surety of the appellant. It has also been observed in the order impugned that out of Rs. 1 Lakh, Rs. 40,000 has already been deposited by the appellant towards the total amount of surety 3 and therefore, the proceeding for recovery of the amount of surety shall be issued in accordance with law, which is under challenge in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though the appellant had taken surety of Rs. 1 Lakh to produce the accused before the Court, however, he has failed to produce the appellant before the Court and therefore, the surety has been forfeited. The appellant is not in a position to pay the amount of Rs. 1 Lakh as he is having no other source of income except his agricultural land. Out of Rs. 1 Lakh, he has already paid Rs. 40,000 on 11.08.2023 and while invoking the provision of Section 446 (3) of the Cr.P.C. the remaining part of his surety i.e. Rs. 60,000 may be remitted. He would rely upon the judgment passed by learned Supreme Court in the matter of Istkar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1801. When the specific query has been asked from the learned counsel for the appellant as to the proceeding against the other surety of the accused, she would submit that the other surety had already deposited the entire amount of surety of Rs. 1 Lakh before the learned trial Court. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and has submitted that at the time when the appellant had taken surety of the Accused for about Rs. 1 Lakh, he was competent and well within knowledge about the consequences, he made declaration that if he will fail to produce the appellant before the Court, he will pay the amount of Rs. 1 Lakh. Now he can not say that he is unable to pay to the amount of Rs. 1 Lakh. She would further submit that other surety has already deposited the entire amount of Rs. 1 Lakh, therefore, no relief can be granted to the present appellant in the present appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material annexed with the appeal. 4 6. The undisputed facts of the case is that the present appellant is one of the surety of the accused in Special Criminal Case (NDPS) No. 89/2018 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and Section 20 (b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act and he produce himself to the surety of Rs. 1 Lakh for the accused. It is also not in dispute that the appellant failed to produce the accused before the learned trial Court in the proceeding and the other surety has already deposited his part of Rs. 1 Lakh before the learned trial Court. On the earlier round of litigation, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed the learned trial Court to issue fresh show cause notice to the appellant and after hearing him, passed fresh order and thereafter, learned trial Court has again issued show cause notice to the appellant and after hearing him passed the order rejecting his prayer for remission of the remaining part of the surety. When the appellant produced himself to be a surety of Rs. 1 Lakh for the accused, he has undertaken his liability to produce the accused before the proceeding of the Court and if he failed to do so he is liable to pay Rs. 1 Lakh as per the conditions of bail bond. The appellant was well within the knowledge about the fact that he was the surety to the tune of Rs. 1 Lakh and he is liable to pay Rs. 1 Lakh. He produced his property as the security of surety and the learned trial Court after considering the bail bond, furnished by the accused as well as the bond of surety, released the accused on bail. Now the appellant cannot say that he is unable to pay the amount of surety for which he has undertaken his liability to pay the same further the other surety has already been deposited the entire amount of Rs. 1 Lakh before the learned trial Court and therefore, in that view of matter, this Court is unable to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant to remit the remaining part of surety i.e. Rs. 60,000. 7. The facts and considerations in the case of Istkar (Supra) is different than the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the Istkar (Supra) case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue on the ground 5 that the surety was taken for preventive action under Section 107/116 (3) of Cr.P.C. of Rs. 5 Lakh which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered to be excessive. But, here in the present case, the amount of surety was taken Rs. 1 Lakh for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and Section 20 (b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act. Particularly, when the other surety has already deposited the entire amount of Rs. 1 Lakh of his part. 8. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by learned trial Court dated 28.07.2025. Accordingly, the present appeal is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.10.07 10:16:38 +0530