CRM-M-49727-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (138) CRM-M-49727-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:03.09.2026 SATPAL … Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate along with Ms. Titiksha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, Addl. AG, Haryana. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973) for quashing of the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Hisar, in Case No. SC/8/2022, titled “State of Haryana vs. Raj Kumar Raju etc.”, whereby the petitioner, who had stood surety for accused Yash Rohilla in FIR No. 694 dated 15.10.2020, under Sections 457/380/411/413/210/120-B IPC, 1860 (corresponding to Sections 331(4)/305/317(2)/317(4)/247/61(2) BNS, GAURAV SOROT 2026.09.07 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-49727-2026 (O&M) -:2:- 2023), Police Station Barwala, District Hisar, for securing his regular bail granted vide order dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-1), has been held liable for forfeiture of the surety bond and saddled with a penalty of `1,00,000/- on account of cancellation of the bail of the said accused and the alleged non-appearance of the petitioner-surety, notwithstanding that the warrants issued against the petitioner had been returned “unexecuted”, and a recovery warrant has further been issued to the learned Collector for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue under Section 461 BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 421 Cr.P.C., 1973), the impugned order being ex facie arbitrary, mechanically passed and vitiated by non- application of judicial mind. 1.1. It is further prayed that operation and execution of the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-3), including the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, may kindly be stayed during the pendency of the present petition, in the interest of justice and to prevent the petitioner from being subjected to undue and irreparable financial hardship. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused Yash Rohilla had regularly appeared before the Trial Court after being granted regular bail, and his non-appearance on 09.09.2024 was neither wilful nor deliberate, as he was then confined in judicial custody. His bail was nevertheless cancelled on the said date. Learned counsel further submits that the subsequent proceedings belie any deliberate evasion, as the proclamation was returned with the report of Constable Ram Lal that the accused was confined in District Jail, Karnal in another case; GAURAV SOROT 2026.09.07 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-49727-2026 (O&M) -:3:- consequently, production warrants were issued on 07.03.2025 and he was produced through video-conferencing before the learned Trial Court on 09.04.2025. It is contended that, despite these circumstances, the petitioner-surety was proceeded against mechanically, without any finding of wilful default, and, notwithstanding the warrants against him having remained unexecuted, was held liable under Section 491 BNSS, 2023 (Section 446 Cr.P.C., 1973), saddled with a penalty of `1,00,000/- and subjected to recovery proceedings under Section 461 BNSS, 2023 (Section 421 Cr.P.C., 1973). The very object of the surety bond having stood fulfilled upon the accused being traced and produced before the Court, setting aside of the impugned order has accordingly been prayed for. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Upon advance notice, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and opposes the present petition. It is submitted that the impugned order suffers from no illegality, perversity or material infirmity and has been passed by the Trial Court after due consideration of the factual matrix and the applicable legal principles. Dismissal of the present petition has, accordingly, been prayed for. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon meticulous scrutiny of the record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 proceeds on the premise that the “petitioner-surety Satpal has nothing to say”. The said observation, however, is wholly belied by the record. It is an admitted position emerging from the proceedings that the notice contemplated under Section 446 Cr.P.C. was GAURAV SOROT 2026.09.07 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-49727-2026 (O&M) -:4:- never served upon the petitioner-surety and, significantly, even the warrants issued against him were returned unexecuted. Warrants should not have been issued against surety. What is warranted under Section 446 Cr.P.C. is a notice to show cause as to why amount of surety be not imposed as penalty. In case, on service of notice, surety failed to appear, then it is to be presumed that he has nothing to say and order of penalty can be passed but no coercive process to procure his presence is warranted. In the present case since process was unexecuted. In such circumstances, the petitioner could neither be presumed to have waived his right to contest the proposed forfeiture nor could his silence be construed as an absence of defence. The statutory scheme underlying Section 446 Cr.P.C. necessarily postulates that, before a surety is subjected to the penal consequences of forfeiture of his bond, he must be duly called upon to show cause and afforded a meaningful and effective opportunity to place before the Court the circumstances explaining the alleged default. The recording that the petitioner “has nothing to say”, in the complete absence of service of notice upon him, is thus not merely an irregularity but reflects a patent failure to comply with the audi alteram partem rule and amounts to denial of a substantive opportunity of hearing. Since an order of forfeiture and consequential imposition of penalty under Section 446 Cr.P.C. carries serious civil and pecuniary consequences, strict adherence to the prescribed procedure and the principles of natural justice assumes particular significance. An order visiting a surety with such adverse consequences, without first establishing due service of notice and affording him an effective opportunity to explain the alleged breach, GAURAV SOROT 2026.09.07 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-49727-2026 (O&M) -:5:- cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. The impugned order, having been rendered in flagrant disregard of these foundational procedural safeguards and without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard, suffers from patent illegality and material procedural infirmity and, consequently, cannot be sustained in law. The same is accordingly set aside and petition is allowed. 7. In view of the final disposal of the principal proceedings, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising therefrom or ancillary thereto, shall stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are warranted in respect thereof. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 03.09.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.09.07 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document