HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4469 of 2026 Court No. - 90 HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellants is permitted to make correction in the prayer clause of the appeal during course of the day. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section - 495 BNSS against orders dated 04.04.2026 and 06.04.2026, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kasganj, in Sessions Case No. 834 of 2025 (State Vs. Hirdesh and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2015, under Sections - 103(2), 352, 115(2) BNS, Police Station - Sidhpura, District - Kasganj, whereby the appellants/accused were directed to deposit the amount of Rs. one lakh in pursuance to forfeiture of their personal bonds. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. This appeal is being finally decided at the stage of admission itself. 5. It was submitted by learned counsel for appellants that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. Appellants are accused in the aforesaid session trial. On 03.04.2026 examination-in-chief of P.W.-2 Prempal was recorded but the counsel of appellants/accused has sought an Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anil Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Hirdesh And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) adjournment, which was allowed at costs of Rs. 1,000/- against each of the accused and matter was fixed for 04.04.2026 for cross examination of P.W.- 2 Prempal. Learned counsel submitted that on 04.04.2026 the appellants/accused were present before the trial Court and when case was called, they have gone to call their counsel but meanwhile the trial Court has forfeited the personal bonds of appellants-accused as well as surety bonds of sureties and matter was fixed for 11.05.2026. It is further submitted that on 06.04.2026 appellants/accused have filed an application before the learned trial Court for recall of order dated 04.04.2026 but the same has been rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 06.04.2026. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned orders are arbitrary and that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellants/accused before forfeiture of their personal bonds and thus, impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to peruse the provisions of Section - 491 and 492 BNSS, which are reincarnation of section 446 & 446- A Cr.P.C. read as under :- ''491. Procedure when bond has been forfeited.-(1) Where,- a bond under this Sanhita 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 (b) in respect of any other bond under this Sanhita, 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. CRLA No. 4469 of 2026 2 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 Sanhita: 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, 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 125 or section 136 or section 401 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 494, 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." "492. Cancellation of bond and bail bond. Cancellation of bond and bail bond. - Without prejudice to the provisions of section 491, where a bond or bail bond under this Sanhita is for appearance of a person in a case and it is forfeited for breach of a condition,— (a) the bond executed by such person as well as the bond, if any, executed by one or more of his sureties in that case shall stand cancelled; and (b) thereafter no such person shall be released only on his own bond in that case, if the police officer or the Court, as the case may be, for appearance before whom the bond was executed, is satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for the failure of the person bound by the bond to comply with its condition: Provided that subject to any other provisions of this Sanhita he may be released in that case upon the execution of a fresh personal bond for such sum of money and bond by one or more of such sureties as the police officer or the Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient." 9. Essentially Section - 491 BNSS deals with sureties for breach of bond by the accused, whereas, Section - 492 BNSS deals with the consequences to be faced by accused upon forfeiture of bond (personal bond). 10. In the instant matter, it appears from record that appellants are accused in the aforesaid case and that on 03.04.2026 witness P.W.-2 Prempal was present before the trial Court but the counsel of accused persons has sought CRLA No. 4469 of 2026 3 adjournment, which was allowed at the costs of Rs. 1,000/- each against each of the accused and case was fixed for 04.04.2026. On 04.04.2026, the trial Court has observed that by 11:30 AM accused persons were absent and witness P.W.-2 Prempal was present and that amount of costs has also not been paid and thus, personal bonds of appellants/accused were forfeited. Appellants/accused have filed an application before the trial Court for recall of said order, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 06.04.2026. In view of attending facts, the order regarding recovery of whole amount of personal bonds appears harsh and arbitrary. As per provisions of Section - 491(3) BNSS, the Court, after recording reasons, has power to remit any power of penalty and enforce payment in part only. 11. Considering aforesaid facts of the matter, the penalty of personal bond amount is reduced to amount of Rs. 5,000/- each. The appellants/accused are directed to deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- each within a period of three weeks from today. On deposition of said amount, the proceedings under Section - 491 / 492 BNSS, qua the appellants, would stand disposed of. Impugned orders stand altered to that extent. It is further directed that for a period of three weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellants / accused regarding recovery of bail bond amount. In case appellants failed to deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,000/- each within the aforesaid period, the impugned orders passed by the trial Court shall remain effective and operative. 12. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. May 6, 2026 S Rawat CRLA No. 4469 of 2026 4 (Raj Beer Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad