Disposed¶23

Sandeep v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Sept 2025CRM-M/22953/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Surety bond forfeiture — parole of NDPS convict — failure to surrender — parity between co-sureties — reduction of forfeiture from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 40,000/- — Mohammed Kunju v. State of Karnataka, 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 726 — Rajender v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-22893-2021 — District Magistrate, Rohtak forfeiture order dated 07.10.2014 — FIR No. 111 dated 26.05.2003, Section 20 NDPS Act — Punjab & Haryana High Court, CRM-M-22953-2021, decided 04.09.2025 by Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of by modifying the forfeiture order dated 07.10.2014: confiscation/forfeiture amount reduced from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 40,000/-, to be deposited with the competent authority within one month, failing which the petition is deemed dismissed. ¶23

Sandeep Vs State of Haryana and Another — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 07.10.2014 of the District Magistrate, Rohtak forfeiting the entire surety amount of Rs. 2 lakhs furnished by the petitioner for the parole release of convict Sriom @ Sunda should be modified, in view of the parity with co-surety Rajender and the fact that the convict was apprehended with the petitioner's help.

¶15

Court's answer

Counsel for the respondent-State was not in a position to dispute that similarly placed surety Rajender had already been granted the concession of reduction of surety by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.12.2021 in CRM-M-22893 of 2021.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

While maintaining parity with co-surety Rajender, the petition is disposed of by modifying the respondents' order; the direction for forfeiture/confiscation of the entire amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was held to be harsh.

¶21

Key takeaways

The forfeiture direction being contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Kunju versus State of Karnataka, 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 726, the confiscation/forfeiture amount was reduced to Rs. 40,000/-, to be deposited with the competent authority within one month.ratio¶23
If the reduced amount of Rs. 40,000/- is not deposited within the stipulated period of one month, the present petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., oral) disposed of CRM-M-22953-2021 (Sandeep v. State of Haryana and another) challenging the order dated 07.10.2014 of the District Magistrate, Rohtak forfeiting the entire surety of Rs. 2 lakhs furnished by the petitioner for the parole release of convict Sriom @ Sunda (convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment in FIR No. 111 dated 26.05.2003), who failed to surrender but was later apprehended with the petitioner's help. Counsel for the State did not dispute that co-surety Rajender, identically situated, had already had his forfeiture reduced from Rs. 2 Lakhs to Rs. 40,000/- by a Co-ordinate Bench in CRM-M-22893 of 2021 (order dated 03.12.2021). Maintaining parity, and holding forfeiture of the entire amount harsh and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Kunju versus State of Karnataka, 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 726, the Court reduced the confiscation/forfeiture to Rs. 40,000/-, to be deposited with the competent authority within one month, failing which the petition would stand deemed dismissed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

255

¶3

CRM-M-22953-2021 Date of decision: 04.09.2025

SANDEEP

......Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

¶8

.......Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

¶10

¶11

Present: - Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

¶13

¶14

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

¶15

Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 07.10.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtak whereby the surety amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was ordered to be forfeited to the State.

¶16

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner had stood surety for one Sriom @ Sunda son of Sher Singh, resident of Village Chuliana, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak, who had been convicted for commission of offences under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years in case bearing FIR No. 111 dated 26.05.2003. He contends that the

¶17

VISHAL SHARMAconvict Sriom @ Sunda had been granted parole for a period of four weeks 2025.09.10 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-22953-2021 -2-

¶19

vide order dated 06.06.2014 by the Commissioner Rohtak Circle, Rohtak Division Rohtak. The petitioner furnished surety for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs in terms of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. Consequent upon the order of release, the convict failed to surrender within the time frame whereupon the Superintendent Jail, Rohtak sent an intimation to the District Magistrate on 16.09.2014. Notice was accordingly served upon the petitioner and he was called for personal hearing on 28.10.2014. He contends that the convict was later apprehended with the help of the petitioner and has been handed over. He contend that notwithstanding the same, the impugned order has been passed whereby the surety offered by the petitioner has been ordered to be forfeited. He further contends that as a matter of a fact, the convict Sriom @ Sunda was released on furnishing of surety bonds by two persons including one Rajender. Similar order for forfeiture of the surety was passed in the matter of Rajender as well. CRMM-22893 of 2021 had been preferred by said Rajender before this Court. Vide order dated 03.12.2021, the said petition has been disposed of reducing the surety for a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs to Rs. 40,000/-.

¶20

Counsel for the respondent-State is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid aspect that similarly placed surety Rajender has already been granted the concession of sum of surety by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.12.2021 passed in CRM-M-22893 of 2021 titled as “Rajender versus State of Haryana and another”.

¶21

Consequently while maintaining parity, the present petition is disposed of by modifying the order passed by the respondents directing VISHAL SHARMA forfeiture/confiscation of entire amount of Rs. 2 lakhs being harsh and 2025.09.10 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-22953-2021 -3-

¶23

contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Mohammed Kunju versus State of Karnataka” reported as 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 726 case and by reducing the confiscation/forfeiture amount to Rs. 40,000/-. Let the aforesaid amount of Rs. 40,000/- be deposited with the competent authority within a period of one month from today. It is made clear that in case the said amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the present petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.

¶24

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) SEPTEMBER 4, 2025 JUDGE Vishal Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶25

VISHAL SHARMA 2025.09.10 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sandeep v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Heena @ Hina Vs State of Punjab and Another

Rajinder Singh Virk and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Iqbal Singh Tung Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sandeep Kumar Vs M/S Yire Trade Trhough Its Partners

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Another

Darpan Dadu Vs State of Punjab and Another