The Himachal Pradesh High Court has significantly clarified the limits of surety liability under the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by reducing a Rs.2,00,000 forfeiture to Rs.25,000 after recognizing natural calamities as a valid excuse for a convict’s failure to return from parole. This ruling establishes that administrative authorities must verify plausible explanations before imposing financial penalties on sureties, especially when the surety is a vulnerable individual with no independent income.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Pushpa Devi, mother of convict Mukund Lal, furnished a surety bond on 26.05.2025 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000, backed by landed property in Khata Katauni No.717/927, 718/928, Khasra No.264, Khasra Kitta No.5, measuring 00-05-11 Bigha, situated in Muhal Kashawri, Sub Tehsil Jari, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. This bond was required as a condition for granting parole to her son, who was serving a ten-year sentence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Key Facts
- Convict Mukund Lal was granted parole for a period of 28 days, commencing on 26.05.2025, with a mandatory surrender date of 23.06.2025.
- He failed to return to jail by the stipulated date.
- The Superintendent of Jail, Lala Lajpat Rai, Dharamshala, reported the non-surrender to the District Magistrate, Kullu, on 23.07.2025.
- A show cause notice dated 23.07.2025 was issued to the petitioner (Annexure P-2), calling upon her to explain why the surety bond should not be forfeited and the property attached.
- The petitioner submitted a reply on 05.08.2025 (Annexure P-3), explaining that heavy rainfall and landslides in Manikaran Valley from June 2025 onwards had rendered travel impossible, preventing her son’s timely surrender.
- Despite this explanation, the Additional Deputy Magistrate, Kullu, passed an order on 23.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.2,00,000 in the Government Treasury by February 2026.
- The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 495 of BNSS before the Sessions Judge, Kullu, which was dismissed on 06.03.2026 (Annexure P-6) on the ground that the order was administrative and not judicial.
- The petitioner is a widow with no source of income other than the land pledged as surety.
Procedural History
- 26.05.2025: Surety bond furnished by petitioner for parole of convict Mukund Lal.
- 23.06.2025: Deadline for surrender expired; convict did not return.
- 23.07.2025: Show cause notice issued by District Magistrate, Kullu.
- 05.08.2025: Petitioner’s reply submitted, citing landslides and heavy rainfall.
- 23.01.2026: Additional Deputy Magistrate ordered forfeiture of Rs.2,00,000.
- 06.03.2026: Sessions Judge dismissed appeal under Section 495 BNSS.
- 16.04.2026: Writ petition filed under Section 528 BNSS decided by Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 23.01.2026, reduction of the forfeiture amount from Rs.2,00,000 to a reasonable sum, and recognition of the force majeure circumstances as a valid defense against forfeiture.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an administrative authority, upon receiving a plausible explanation for a convict’s failure to return from parole - specifically due to natural calamities - may impose full forfeiture of a surety bond without verifying the facts or considering the surety’s personal circumstances.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, argued that the petitioner had promptly disclosed the force majeure condition - landslides and heavy rainfall in Manikaran Valley from June 2025 - that physically prevented the convict’s return. He emphasized that the authority failed to verify this claim despite it being documented and geographically verifiable. He further submitted that the petitioner, as a widow with no income, could not bear the burden of Rs.2,00,000, and that the amount was disproportionate to the nature of the breach. He relied on principles of natural justice and proportionality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
For the Respondent
Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General, contended that once the convict failed to return on the stipulated date, the surety’s liability was absolute under BNSS. He argued that the authority was under no obligation to investigate the reasons for non-surrender, as the bond’s terms were unconditional. He maintained that the order was administrative and not subject to judicial review under Section 528 BNSS.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that the order of forfeiture was passed by an administrative authority under BNSS, and thus not a judicial order. However, it emphasized that administrative action must still comply with the principles of natural justice. The Court observed:
"Once petitioner had rendered explanation on record qua delay in surrendering by the convict, competent authority was expected to consider the same."
It noted that the Additional Deputy Magistrate had not addressed the petitioner’s explanation in the order dated 23.01.2026, nor had it sought independent verification of the landslides, despite the region’s well-documented vulnerability to such events during monsoon. The Court held that failure to consider a plausible, non-frivolous explanation rendered the order arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
The Court further observed that the surety’s role is not to guarantee absolute compliance but to ensure reasonable diligence. Since the petitioner had acted promptly upon receiving the show cause notice and disclosed verifiable external impediments, she could not be deemed negligent. The Court also took into account the convict’s subsequent re-capture, which negated any risk of flight, and the petitioner’s indigent status, which was not disputed by the State.
The Court distinguished this case from those involving willful evasion or fraudulent conduct, noting that here, the failure was due to an act of nature beyond human control.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The order dated 23.01.2026 imposing a forfeiture of Rs.2,00,000 was modified to require the petitioner to deposit only Rs.25,000 in the Government Treasury within three weeks from the date of judgment. Failure to comply within this period shall result in the automatic revival of the original forfeiture order. The Court emphasized that the reduced amount reflects proportionality, the petitioner’s financial hardship, and the absence of culpable negligence.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Force Majeure Must Be Verified, Not Ignored
- Practitioners must now argue that natural disasters, road blockages, or weather-related impediments constitute valid grounds for non-compliance with parole conditions.
- Authorities cannot mechanically impose forfeiture without examining documentary or verifiable evidence of force majeure.
- Courts will scrutinize whether the authority undertook even minimal due diligence before imposing financial penalties.
Surety Liability Is Not Absolute
- Sureties are not insurers of a convict’s conduct; their duty is to act with reasonable diligence.
- A surety who promptly discloses external impediments and cooperates with authorities cannot be penalized disproportionately.
- Courts may reduce forfeiture amounts where the surety is economically vulnerable and the convict has been re-captured.
Proportionality Governs Administrative Penalties
- The quantum of forfeiture must be commensurate with the nature of the breach and the surety’s capacity to pay.
- Blanket forfeiture of large sums without individualized assessment violates Article 14.
- Future applications for surety bond modification must include affidavits of income, property details, and evidence of external impediments.
