HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9259 of 2026 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 495 BNSS against judgment and order dated 14.07.2026, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C.-4, Bulandshahr in Criminal Misc. Case No.192 of 2026 (State Vs. Panna Lal), P.S.- Pahasu, District- Bulandshahr, whereby the appellant has been directed to deposit bail bond amount of rupees one lakh in pursuance to forfeiture of bail bond. 2. This appeal is being decided finally at the stage of admission itself. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has stood surety for accused Seetu @ Banti @ Viresh in case S.C. No.3030/ 2023 and during trial the said accused has absconded and thus non-bailable warrants were issued against him and proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were initiated against appellant and co-surety Hemwati Devi. It was submitted that now said accused Seetu @ Banti @ Viresh has surrendered before the trial Court on 23.03.2026 and since then he is in judicial custody and his bail application has also been rejected. It was stated that the financial condition of appellant is not well and that as accused has already surrendered before the trial Court, thus the amount of surety bond to be recovered from appellant, may be reduced. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Amitesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Panna Lal @ Panni Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned AGA has opposed and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 6. I have considered submissions and perused the record. 7. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to peruse the provisions of Section - 446 Cr.P.C., which read as under :- ''446. Procedure when bond has been forfeited.?(1) Where a bond under this Code is for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court and it is proved to the satisfaction of that Court, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, that the bond has been forfeited, or where, in respect of any other bond under this Code, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which the bond was taken, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, or of the Court of any Magistrate of the first class, that the bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid. Explanation.?A condition in a bond for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court shall be construed as including a condition for appearance, or as the case may be, for production of property, before any Court to which the case may subsequently be transferred. (2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same as if such penalty were a fine imposed by it under this Code: 1 [Provided that where such penalty is not paid and cannot be recovered in the manner aforesaid, the person so bound as surety shall be liable, by order of the Court ordering the recovery of the penalty, to imprisonment in civil jail for a term which may extend to six months.] (3) The Court may, 2[after recording its reasons for doing so], remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only. (4) Where a surety to a bond dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the bond. (5) Where any person who has furnished security under section 106 or section 117 or section 360 is convicted of an offence the commission of which constitutes a breach of the conditions of his bond, or of a bond executed in lieu of his bond under section 448, a certified copy of the judgment of the Court by which he was convicted of such offence may be used as evidence in proceedings under this section against his surety or sureties, and, if such certified copy is so used, the Court shall presume that such offence was committed by him unless the contrary is proved." 8. In the instant matter, it appears from record that appellant was surety for accused Seetu @ Banti @ Viresh in SC No.3030/2023 case State Vs Seetu @ Banti and appellant has submitted bail bond in sum of rupees one CRLA No. 9259 of 2026 2 lakh. During trial said accused has absconded and thus warrants were issued against him. It was shown that now said accused Seetu @ Banti @ Viresh has surrendered before the trial Court on 23.03.2026 and since then he is in judicial custody. As per provisions of Section 446(3) Cr.P.C./ 491(3) BNSS, the Court has power to remit any portion of penalty imposed on forfeiture of bail bond. In the present case considering the fact that said accused has already surrendered before the trial Court, it would be just and proper that amount of surety bond to be recovered from the appellant, be reduced. 9. Considering entire facts, it is directed that the appellant/ surety shall deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/ before the trial Court within 45 days from today. It is directed that for a period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall taken against appellant. On deposition of aforesaid amount within the aforesaid period, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. against appellant would stand disposed of. In case the said amount of Rs 50,000/- is not deposited by the appellant / surety within the aforesaid period, the impugned order and proceedings shall remain effective and operative. The impugned order stand altered accordingly. 10. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. September 29, 2026 'SP'/- CRLA No. 9259 of 2026 3 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad