Topic
Allahabad HC partially allows appeal against forfeiture of surety bonds under Section 446 CrPC, reducing penalty from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.50,000 each for two sureties. The court directs deposit within two months, emphasizing judicial discretion in mitigating harsh penalties for sureties who acted in good faith.
Allahabad High Court allows single personal bond and two sureties to suffice for bail in multiple cases under BNS, easing burden on accused.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that Section 437-A CrPC requires accused persons to furnish bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 each with surety before seeking appellate relief, and mere claims of financial distress without documentary proof cannot override this statutory mandate. This reinforces that procedural compliance in appellate bail is non-negotiable, affecting all accused seeking to challenge convictions without securing the prescribed financial guarantees.
Punjab & Haryana HC clarifies that statutory timelines for bail bonds under BNSS Section 528 operate independently of compensation deposit requirements under Section 138 of the NI Act. The court held that trial courts cannot impose preconditions like compensation deposits for accepting bail bonds, reinforcing the autonomy of procedural laws.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that bail cancellation and bond forfeiture cannot be triggered by a genuine clerical error in noting court dates, affirming that non-bailable warrants must be reserved for wilful evasion, not mere inadvertence. This reinforces procedural fairness for accused persons and sets a critical precedent against automatic punitive measures for administrative oversights.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that surety forfeiture under Section 446 CrPC must be proportionate, reducing a Rs.50,000 penalty to Rs.10,000 where the accused’s bail default was isolated and unconnected to the surety. The decision reinforces that forfeiture is not automatic and must consider the surety’s lack of involvement in the accused’s absence.