Topic
Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure governs the forfeiture of bail bonds and liability of sureties when an accused fails to appear, but only upon wilful default, not mere absence.
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.
Punjab & Haryana HC clarifies that a surety's liability under Section 446 CrPC arises only from wilful default, not merely the accused's absence. The court quashed non-bailable warrants against a surety after the proclamation against the accused was set aside, emphasizing bona fide reasons for non-appearance.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that courts must consider a surety's financial hardship and genuine efforts to produce the accused before imposing penalties under Section 446 CrPC. The judgment reduces a ₹1,00,000 penalty to ₹50,000, reinforcing that bail jurisprudence must balance accountability with fairness, especially for indigent sureties.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that courts must consider a surety's financial hardship and sincere efforts to produce the accused when exercising discretion under Section 446 CrPC. The Court reduced a Rs. 1,00,000 penalty to Rs. 10,000, emphasizing that appellate courts can intervene even after forfeiture to ensure fairness in bail bond enforcement.
Kerala High Court reduces bail bond penalty for sureties facing acute poverty, clarifying that courts must balance state interest with individual hardship under Section 446 CrPC.
The Rajasthan High Court quashes bail forfeiture for a single absence, holding that procedural fairness under Section 446 Cr.P.C. requires prior notice and opportunity to explain.