Allowed¶5

Surender v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Mar 2026CRA-S/4009/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Surety bond forfeiture discharge; Punjab & Haryana High Court; Anoop Chitkara, J.; CRA-S-4009-2025; FIR No. 163 dated 19.04.2022; Section 20 NDPS Act; PS Sadar Jind; accused Pawan Kumar @ Pona; bonds forfeited 23.10.2024 for non-appearance; accused produced in custody same date; no liability on surety; appellant discharged from bond liability; bond entries rectified and cancelled; impugned order 23.07.2025 ASJ Jind set aside; miscellaneous applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Appellant discharged from the liability of the bond; any entry pursuant to the bond to be rectified and treated as cancelled; all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, disposed of. ¶5

Surender Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CRA-S-4009-2025 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

102 CRA-S-4009-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.03.2026

¶5

SURENDER ......... Pe��oners

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF HARYANA ......... Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

Present Mr. Somnath Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

¶11

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

The present appeal has been filed for se�ng aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by learned Addi�onal Sessions Judge, Jind.

¶13

Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant Surender stood surety for the accused Pawan Kumar @ Pona, in Case FIR No. 163 dated 19.04.2022 under Sec�on 20 of the NDPS Act at Police Sta�on Sadar, Jind, District Jind, before the trial court and that his surety bonds were forfeited on 23.10.2024 due to the non-appearance of the accused Pawan Kumar. He further submits that on the same date the accused Pawan Kumar was produced in custody before the trial court. Counsel for the appellant has handed over downloaded copy of the orders passed by the learned Addi�onal Sessions Judge, Jind.

¶14

Perusal of the order dated 23.10.2024 reflects that accused Pawan Kumar @ Pona was absent on that day. However, he was in custody in some other case. Ini�ally, the trial Court cancelled his bail and forfeited bonds in favour of the State. However, later on the said accused was produced, as such, there is no liability on the appellant for produc�on of accused.

¶15

Since, the accused already appeared, as such, no ground is made out to proceed against the appellant, as accused itself was before the Court on the date of cancella�on of his bail. Since the bonds already forfeited, as such, appellant is discharged of all liabili�es.

¶16

Given above, the appellant is discharged from the liability of bond, if any entry pursuant to the bond is in existence, the same be rec�fied and same be treated as cancelled. All pending miscellaneous applica�ons, if any, stand disposed of.

¶17

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶18

18.03.2026

¶19

JYOTI 2026.03.20 15:39 Jyo�-II I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Surender v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohtash Vs State of Haryana and Another

M/S Rama Sanitary Store Vs Subhash Jain and Another

Ram Avtar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kikkar Singh Vs Sham Sunder Monga

Bhagwant Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sahab Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.