Partly allowed¶31

Atma Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Dec 2025CRM-M/25033/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Surety bond forfeiture; penalty reduction under Section 446 Cr.P.C.; quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS; NDPS Act, 1985 Section 21(b) FIR No. 309 dated 17.06.2022; accused Bagicha Singh; P.S. Sadar Fatehaband, District Fatehabad; accused surrender 26.03.2025; no connivance by surety; Ramesh vs. State of Haryana and Another, CRA-S-751-2022 (decided 05.05.2022) relied upon; penalty reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-; petition partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed upon the petitioner vide the impugned order reduced to Rs. 20,000/-; petition partly allowed. ¶31

Atma Singh Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed upon the petitioner vide the impugned order reduced to Rs. 20,000/-; petition partly allowed.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on the petitioner under Section 446 Cr.P.C. after forfeiture of his surety bonds deserves to be reduced, in view of the accused's subsequent surrender and the absence of any allegation of connivance, instigation or anticipation of the default against the petitioner.

¶31

Court's answer

Since there is no allegation of connivance between the petitioner and accused Bagicha Singh, nor that the petitioner instigated or helped the accused not to appear, nor that he had any inkling that the accused would default or jump bail, the penalty amount deserves to be reduced.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The petition is partly allowed and the amount of penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed upon the petitioner vide the impugned order is reduced to Rs. 20,000/-.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS seeking quashing of the order dated 06.04.2024 (Annexure P-4) whereby the petitioner, who stood surety for accused Bagicha Singh in FIR No. 309 dated 17.06.2022 under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sadar Fatehaband, District Fatehabad, was directed to pay the bond amount. After the accused's non-appearance on 23.08.2024, bail was cancelled and bonds forfeited to the State, and the surety-bond amount was imposed as penalty on the petitioner under Section 446 Cr.P.C.; the accused later appeared and surrendered on 26.03.2025 and was taken into custody. Finding no allegation of connivance, instigation, assistance or foreknowledge of the default against the petitioner, who pleaded old-age ailments, absence of income and clean antecedents, and relying on the Court's earlier order in Ramesh vs. State of Haryana and Another (CRA-S-751-2022, decided on 05.05.2022), the Court partly allowed the petition and reduced the penalty from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-.

�� ��

��

��

�� !"�� #$%$!&'�()��)��

��*��+$&,-

��))))� �$�$!& .

/ .%0%

+�� !"��.1�&�

��)))))� %2!&3 &�

�� 

4444

�. % &�' �!& )

4444

��

�&�5$ 6�!"��- �. 70 %��8 �� .�#$.#08�� 3�91��.��%%!#$��$!&:��8�61 .%��. ��9%��$&$&,�".!*�6!.;)

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the impugned order dated 06.04.2024, Annexure P-4, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay bond amount being surety in lieu of surety bond furnished by him for accused Bagicha Singh in case FIR No. 309 dated 17.06.2022, under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sadar Fatehaband, District Fatehabad.

¶17

As is apparent from the petition, accused Bagicha Singh, for whom the petitioner had stood surety, did not appear on 23.08.2024 and accordingly his bail was cancelled and bonds forfeited to the State vide order dated 23.08.2024. The amount of surety bonds was imposed as penalty on the

¶18

DINESH 2025.12.18 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

�� ��

¶20

petitioner under Section 446 Cr.P.C. However, it is apparent from para 7 of the petition that he was suffering from various ailments due to old age, however made his best efforts to secure the presence of the said accused and finally succeeded, as Bagicha Singh appeared and surrendered on 26.03.2025 and was taken into custody. The petitioner has no source of income and is not in a capacity to pay penalty amount and has clean antecedents. In this regard, reference is made to the order passed by this Court in Ramesh vs. State of Haryana and Another , CRA-S-751-2022, decided on 05.05.2022, wherein the amount of surety from Rs.1,00,000/- was reduced to Rs.10,000/-, operative part whereof reads thus:

¶21

“Notice of motion.

¶22

Learned State counsel accepts notice and submit that the lower Appellate Court has rightly directed the appellant to deposit the entire surety amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in each case.

¶23

In reply, the counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a poor person and is not in a position to pay the entire amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each in the four similar appeals and if the amount is reduced he can pay the amount within a period of two months from today.

¶24

After hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the fact that Devender Singh for whom the appellant has stood surety has already appeared before the lower Appellate Court. It is also a fact that there are four appeals and the appellant has stood surety for him in all the four appeals for Rs.1,00,000/- each and the absence of Devender Singh was beyond the control of the appellant. Therefore, without any further delay in the disposal of the present appeal, the same is partly allowed and the penalty of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed by the trial Court upon the appellant vide impugned order dated 3.2.2022 is reduced to Rs.10,000/-, which will be paid by the appellant.

¶25

DINESH 2025.12.18 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

�� ��

¶27

The penalty amount of Rs.10,000/- will be deposited with the lower Appellate Court within a period of two months from today.

¶28

However, it is made clear that if the amount of penalty is not deposited on or before 5.7.2022, the present appeal shall be deemed to be dismissed without any further orders.”

¶29

There is no allegation of connivance between the petitioner and

¶30

the accused Bagicha Singh nor that he had instigated or helped the accused, in any manner, not to appear. It is also not the case set up that he had a whiff that the accused shall make a default in appearing or jump the bail, this Court, thus, finds in the overall facts and circumstances of the present case that the penalty amount deserves to be reduced.

¶31

In view of the above, the petition is partly allowed and the amount of penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed upon the petitioner vide the impugned order is reduced to Rs. 20,000/-.

¶32

�� �� � �� �� ! "# ��$��%�&� 3$& %- <- �- .�%2 �;$&, ' � %=�! <- �- .�. 2!.��98 ' � %=�!

¶33

DINESH 2025.12.18 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Atma Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atma Singh v. State of Haryana

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

Case details

Similar cases

Kulwinder Vs State of Haryana

Sukhtaj Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gxxxx Sxxxx Alias Gxxxxx Vs State of Punjab

Amarjit Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Lovejit Singh @ Raj Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sehbag Khan and Another Vs State of Punjab