Bond Forfeiture Under BNSS | Mere Involvement in Criminal Case Not Sufficient for Breach : Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has delivered a significant judgment clarifying that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot automatically constitute breach of a bond for good behaviour under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court set aside an arbitrary detention order, reinforcing that procedural fairness and natural justice principles must govern bond forfeiture proceedings under Section 122 of BNSS, particularly when no conviction has been recorded.

Background & Facts

The Genesis of the Dispute

The petitioner, Smt. Sura Laxmi, a 55-year-old illiterate daily wage worker from Nirmal District, was subjected to bond forfeiture proceedings under Section 122(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). In 2025, she had executed a bond for maintaining good behaviour with an undertaking to pay Rs. 2,00,000 in case of breach. The dispute arose when the Prohibition and Excise Department alleged she breached this bond by her involvement in Crime No. 667/2024 under Section 7(A) read with Section 8(E) of the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

Procedural History

The case progressed through the following stages:

• 14.11.2024: Notice issued under Section 122(1)(b) BNSS calling upon the petitioner to show cause why she should not be imprisoned for breach of bond
• 22.12.2025: Show-cause notice allegedly served (petitioner claims she was unaware)
• 22.01.2026: Executive Magistrate passed order in M.C. No. A/78/2026 forfeiting the bond and directing detention
• 22.01.2026: Warrant of commitment issued under Form 16 BNSS, remanding petitioner to judicial custody
• 27.01.2026: Present writ petition filed challenging the detention order

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

1. Declaration that the impugned proceedings (M.C. No. A/78/2026 dated 22.01.2026) were illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution
2. Setting aside of the warrant of commitment issued under Form 16 BNSS
3. Immediate release from judicial custody pending disposal of the main writ petition

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether mere involvement of a person in a criminal case, without any conviction or adjudication of guilt, could constitute valid grounds for:

1. Forfeiture of a bond for good behaviour under Section 122 BNSS
2. Issuance of a warrant of commitment under Section 141 BNSS
3. Whether such proceedings violated principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner's counsel advanced several key contentions:

1. Procedural Violations: The impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice
2. Lack of Conviction: Mere involvement in Crime No. 667/2024 (where petitioner was shown as absconding) could not constitute breach of bond, as no conviction had been recorded
3. Precedent Reliance: Cited W.P. No. 17391 of 2020 where this Court held that mere involvement in a criminal case cannot equate to breach of good behaviour bond
4. Arbitrary Detention: The warrant of commitment was issued without proper application of mind and was perverse in law
5. Illiteracy Consideration: The petitioner's illiteracy should have been considered before passing such drastic orders

For the Respondents

The Assistant Government Pleader for Excise contended:

1. Bond Conditions: The petitioner had executed a bond with clear conditions and failed to comply when called upon
2. Statutory Compliance: The proceedings were conducted in accordance with Section 122 BNSS and the petitioner failed to respond to the show-cause notice
3. Prohibition Act Provisions: Cited Section 8(E) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 to argue that the petitioner's involvement in the crime constituted breach of bond
4. No Prejudice: The petitioner had adequate opportunity to respond and cannot now claim innocence

The Court's Analysis

The Court conducted a meticulous analysis of the legal principles governing bond forfeiture proceedings:

1. Natural Justice Requirements: The Court observed that the impugned order was passed without proper application of mind and without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice. The Court noted:

"Without proper application of mind and without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed... The impugned order has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and without assigning any reasons."

1. Conviction Requirement: The Court examined the distinction between mere involvement in a criminal case and actual conviction. Relying on its earlier decision in W.P. No. 17391 of 2020, the Court held:

"Mere involvement of a person in a criminal case by itself would not constitute breach of a bond for good behaviour, as the same cannot be equated with a conviction."

1. Statutory Interpretation: The Court analyzed Section 122 BNSS and held that forfeiture of bond for good behaviour cannot be based merely on allegations or involvement in another criminal case. The Court emphasized that:

"The registration of C.O.R. No. 70 of 2025... cannot constitute a valid ground to hold the petitioner guilty of breach of bond... In the absence of any adjudication or conviction, remanding the petitioner to judicial custody on the ground of alleged breach of bond is perverse, illegal, and amounts to an abuse of process of law."

1. Article 21 Compliance: The Court held that the arbitrary detention violated the petitioner's fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the detention order was passed after a lapse of one month from the notice, making it particularly egregious.

2. Evidentiary Considerations: The Court critically examined the evidence relied upon by the respondents:

• The mere thumb impression on the notice could not conclusively prove receipt by the petitioner
• The petitioner's status as an absconding accused in another case could not automatically prove breach of bond
• No proper inquiry was conducted to establish actual breach of good behaviour

The Verdict

The Court allowed the writ petition and:

1. Set aside the impugned order (M.C. No. A/78/2026 dated 22.01.2026) passed by the Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Khanapur
2. Declared the warrant of commitment issued under Form 16 BNSS as illegal and unsustainable
3. Directed the Superintendent of District Jail, Adilabad to immediately release the petitioner upon receipt of the order
4. Disposed of the writ petition without costs

What This Means For Similar Cases

Bond Forfeiture Requires Actual Conviction

The judgment establishes that:

• Mere involvement in a criminal case is insufficient to constitute breach of a bond for good behaviour under Section 122 BNSS
• Actual conviction is necessary before any bond forfeiture proceedings can be initiated
• Practitioners should challenge any bond forfeiture orders based solely on allegations or FIR registration

Natural Justice Is Non-Negotiable

The Court reinforced that:

• Reasonable opportunity of hearing must be provided before passing any bond forfeiture orders
• Illiterate persons must be given special consideration in legal proceedings
• Arbitrary timelines (like the 7-day response period in this case) may violate natural justice principles
• Reasons must be recorded in all judicial and quasi-judicial orders

Procedural Safeguards Against Arbitrary Detention

Key takeaways for practitioners:

• Form 16 warrants must be challenged if issued without proper inquiry
• Article 21 violations can be argued in cases of arbitrary detention
• Precedent reliance: The judgment in W.P. No. 17391 of 2020 can be cited to challenge similar arbitrary orders
• Evidentiary challenges: Mere thumb impressions or service acknowledgments cannot be conclusive proof of notice receipt