119 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RAJESH STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Ms HARPREET SINGH BRAR CRM-20412-2025 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the main appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 120 days in filing the main appeal is condoned. MAIN CASE 1. This second 14.11.2024 passed by Collector, Hisar, vide which direction was issued to Tehsildar, Hisar to recover the amount of Rs.1 lakh from the surety/appellant, arising out of the order dated 01.10.2024 Sessions Judge, Hisar, in a case bearing CIS No.CRA/8/2018 titled as ‘Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Parveen Dhanda’ Collector, Hisar to recover the surety amount from the surety earlier appeal was dismissed as IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH V/S HARYANA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Ms. Sanchi Choudhary, Advocate for the **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) 2025 This is an application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the main appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 120 days in filing the main appeal is condoned. This second appeal has been filed 14.11.2024 passed by Collector, Hisar, vide which direction was issued to Tehsildar, Hisar to recover the amount of Rs.1 lakh from the surety/appellant, arising out of the order dated 01.10.2024 pas Sessions Judge, Hisar, in a case bearing CIS No.CRA/8/2018 titled as ‘Kuldeep Kumar Vs. Parveen Dhanda’, vide which liberty was granted to the Collector, Hisar to recover the surety amount from the surety peal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-20412-2025 in/and CRA-S-1672-2025 (O & M) Date of decision: 19.05.2025 ...APPELLANT ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the appellant. filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the main appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 120 days in filing the main appeal is condoned. has been filed against the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by Collector, Hisar, vide which direction was issued to Tehsildar, Hisar to recover the amount of Rs.1 lakh from the surety/appellant, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, in a case bearing CIS No.CRA/8/2018 titled as , vide which liberty was granted to the Collector, Hisar to recover the surety amount from the surety-appellant. The withdrawn vide order dated 24.04.2025 passed MANISHA 2025.05.20 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-20412-2025 CRA-S-1672-2025 by this Court and liberty was challenge to the impugned order passed by Assistant Collector. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the app surety bonds for a sum of Rs. however, accused was arrested by the police and produced before the Court on 11.12.2023. Thereafter, on 08.08.2024 bail bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State. accused as well as his surety i.e. appellant were issued 01.10.2024, the lower Appellate Court dismissed accused-Kuldeep Kumar, in his absence and uphold his conviction by giving liberty to the Collector, Hisar to recover the surety amount from the appellant/surety. Thereafter, the Collector, Hisar vide order dated 14.11.2024 directed the Tehsildar, Hisar to recover an amount of Rs.1 lakh from the appellant/surety and ordered him to deposit the same in Tehsil Office. Hence, the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the surety bond furnished by the learned trial Court, making him liable to pay Rs. that the learned trial Court recover the surety amount from the appellant/surety given proper opportunity to explain his position for non to the notice issued under Section 446 is not in the hands of appellant/surety to apprehend the accused Kumar as he is completely unaware about the whereabouts of accused. He 2025 in/and 2025 (O & M) by this Court and liberty was granted to file fresh petition challenge to the impugned order passed by Assistant Collector. Brief facts of the present case are that the app surety bonds for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for bail of accused however, accused-Kuldeep Kumar absented on 16.03.2020 was arrested by the police and produced before the Court on 11.12.2023. 08.08.2024, accused-Kuldeep Kumar again absented and bail bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State. accused as well as his surety i.e. appellant were issued 01.10.2024, the lower Appellate Court dismissed Kuldeep Kumar, in his absence and uphold his conviction by giving liberty to the Collector, Hisar to recover the surety amount from the appellant/surety. Thereafter, the Collector, Hisar vide order dated 14.11.2024 the Tehsildar, Hisar to recover an amount of Rs.1 lakh from the appellant/surety and ordered him to deposit the same in Tehsil Office. Hence, Learned counsel for the appellant surety bond furnished by the appellant has been wrongly forfeited by the learned trial Court, making him liable to pay Rs. that the learned trial Court has erred in giving liberty to the Collector, Hisar to recover the surety amount from the appellant/surety given proper opportunity to explain his position for non to the notice issued under Section 446 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that it is not in the hands of appellant/surety to apprehend the accused umar as he is completely unaware about the whereabouts of accused. He 2 granted to file fresh petition after laying challenge to the impugned order passed by Assistant Collector. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant had furnished for bail of accused-Kuldeep Kumar, on 16.03.2020 from the Court, but was arrested by the police and produced before the Court on 11.12.2023. Kuldeep Kumar again absented and his bail bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State. Due to which, notices to accused as well as his surety i.e. appellant were issued. Thereafter on 01.10.2024, the lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Kuldeep Kumar, in his absence and uphold his conviction by giving liberty to the Collector, Hisar to recover the surety amount from the appellant/surety. Thereafter, the Collector, Hisar vide order dated 14.11.2024 the Tehsildar, Hisar to recover an amount of Rs.1 lakh from the appellant/surety and ordered him to deposit the same in Tehsil Office. Hence, appellant inter alia contends that the appellant has been wrongly forfeited by the learned trial Court, making him liable to pay Rs.1 lakh. He further contends has erred in giving liberty to the Collector, Hisar to recover the surety amount from the appellant/surety as the appellant was not given proper opportunity to explain his position for non-appearance pursuant Learned counsel submits that it is not in the hands of appellant/surety to apprehend the accused-Kuldeep umar as he is completely unaware about the whereabouts of accused. He MANISHA 2025.05.20 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-20412-2025 CRA-S-1672-2025 further submits that Section 491(3) of BNS, 2023 empowers the Court to grant remission, it is within the discretion of the Court to grant remission and to decide the extent of remission. the work of a labourer, as such, he is unable to pay such a huge amount of Rs.1 lakh imposed upon him as penalty. to be set aside. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Ms. Geeta Sha accepts notice on behalf of respondent prayer made by the appellant on the ground that the appellant stood surety of accused-Kuldeep Kumar, as such, it is the duty of the app accused in the Court. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order and Collector, Hisar has rightly imposed the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- upon the appellant and he does not deserve any leniency. 6. Having heard the record of the case, it transpires that the appellant is a poor person and unable to pay the penalty amount of Rs.1 lakh. Further, accused in the FIR ( against the appellant that he connived with the accused. 7. A similar issue was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Mohammed Kunju v. State of Karnataka' 1999 (4) RCR (Criminal) 726 this Court in 'Bhagat Singh v. Stat 337, 'Mohinder Singh v. The State of Punjab' 2008 (22) RCR (Criminal) 704, 'Angrej Singh v. State of Punjab' 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 580 and 'Gopal Kaur v. State of Punjab' 2011 (6) RCR (Criminal) 1394 2025 in/and 2025 (O & M) further submits that Section 491(3) of BNS, 2023 empowers the Court to grant remission, it is within the discretion of the Court to grant remission and to decide the extent of remission. Moreover, the appellant is a poor person doing the work of a labourer, as such, he is unable to pay such a huge amount of Rs.1 lakh imposed upon him as penalty. As such, the impugned order is liable Notice of motion. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and prayer made by the appellant on the ground that the appellant stood surety of Kuldeep Kumar, as such, it is the duty of the app accused in the Court. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order and Collector, Hisar has rightly imposed the penalty of upon the appellant and he does not deserve any leniency. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the appellant is a poor person and unable to pay the penalty amount of Rs.1 lakh. Further, accused in the FIR (supra) has already been upheld against the appellant that he connived with the accused. A similar issue was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Mohammed Kunju v. State of Karnataka' 1999 (4) RCR (Criminal) 726 'Bhagat Singh v. State of Haryana' 2018 (2) RCR (Criminal) 337, 'Mohinder Singh v. The State of Punjab' 2008 (22) RCR (Criminal) 704, 'Angrej Singh v. State of Punjab' 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 580 and 'Gopal Kaur v. State of Punjab' 2011 (6) RCR (Criminal) 1394 3 further submits that Section 491(3) of BNS, 2023 empowers the Court to grant remission, it is within the discretion of the Court to grant remission and to the appellant is a poor person doing the work of a labourer, as such, he is unable to pay such a huge amount of As such, the impugned order is liable rma, DAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court, State and per contra, opposes the prayer made by the appellant on the ground that the appellant stood surety of Kuldeep Kumar, as such, it is the duty of the appellant to produce the accused in the Court. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order and Collector, Hisar has rightly imposed the penalty of upon the appellant and he does not deserve any leniency. learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the appellant is a poor person and is unable to pay the penalty amount of Rs.1 lakh. Further, the conviction of ) has already been upheld and there is no allegation against the appellant that he connived with the accused. A similar issue was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Mohammed Kunju v. State of Karnataka' 1999 (4) RCR (Criminal) 726 and e of Haryana' 2018 (2) RCR (Criminal) 337, 'Mohinder Singh v. The State of Punjab' 2008 (22) RCR (Criminal) 704, 'Angrej Singh v. State of Punjab' 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 580 and 'Gopal Kaur v. State of Punjab' 2011 (6) RCR (Criminal) 1394, wherein, the MANISHA 2025.05.20 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-20412-2025 CRA-S-1672-2025 penalty imposed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. was reduced to 1/4th of the amount of surety bonds 8. The surrender on time and there appellant and the accused the learned lower Appellate 9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion the present appeal. Resultantly, the impugned order dated by Collector, Hisar 10. The from Rs.1,00,000/ or recovered from the appellant so far, he is directed to deposit the same with the trial Court, within a period of 03 months from today, failing which, this appeal would automatically stand d 11. Disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. May 19, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 2025 in/and 2025 (O & M) nalty imposed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. was reduced to 1/4th of the amount of surety bonds by holding that the said bonds were The appellant had no knowledge that surrender on time and there are no allegation appellant and the accused with regard to the accused learned lower Appellate Court. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served in allowing present appeal. Resultantly, the impugned order dated by Collector, Hisar is hereby quashed. The penalty imposed upon the appellant is reduced to Rs. 000/- If the said amount of Rs.25 or recovered from the appellant so far, he is directed to deposit the same with the trial Court, within a period of 03 months from today, failing which, this automatically stand dismissed without any further orders. Disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 4 nalty imposed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. was reduced to 1/4th of the by holding that the said bonds were on the higher side. had no knowledge that the convict would not ons of collusion between the regard to the accused not surrendering before Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this that the interest of justice would be served in allowing present appeal. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 passed penalty imposed upon the appellant is reduced to Rs.25,000/- 5,000/- has not been deposited or recovered from the appellant so far, he is directed to deposit the same with the trial Court, within a period of 03 months from today, failing which, this ismissed without any further orders. Disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.20 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment