{"id":348326,"date":"2025-05-20T10:00:30","date_gmt":"2025-05-20T04:30:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=348326"},"modified":"2025-05-23T09:31:30","modified_gmt":"2025-05-23T04:01:30","slug":"separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Separate orders required for bail bond cancellation and imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC\u2019; Himachal Pradesh HC allows appeal of a penalised surety, remands matter"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Himachal Pradesh High Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed against a composite order, whereby the Trial Court imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant and issued a recovery warrant against him under Section 421<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/a> (‘CrPC’), a Single Judge Bench of Virender Singh, J., allowed the appeal, holding that separate orders were required to be passed by the Trial Court as per Section 446<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a>, firstly, at the time of cancellation of bail bonds and secondly, at the time of imposing penalty. In this case, the composite order deprived the appellant-surety of the opportunity to put forward his plea regarding non-production of the accused.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The accusedwas arrested by the Police in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 354-A<\/a> and 506<\/a> of the Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’), and Section 8<\/a> of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/a> (‘POCSO’). The accused filed a bail application before the Trial Court, wherein the Court granted his release on bail, during the pendency of the trial, subject to his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000\/ with one surety in the like amount.<\/p>\n

In pursuance of the directions of the Trial Court, the appellant stood surety by giving a solemn undertaking to produce the accused before the Court on every date of hearing. However, the accused did not appear before the Trial Court. Efforts were made to secure his presence by issuing bailable warrants, but his presence could not be secured. Eventually vide the impugned order, the Trial Court initiated proceedings under Section 82<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a> against the accused and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 upon the appellant. Additionally, recovery warrants were issued to recover the said penalty amount from the appellant.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal contending that the Trial Court passed the impugned order without giving sufficient opportunities to the appellant to explain the non-appearance.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision<\/h3>\n

Upon bare perusal of Section 446<\/a> CrPC<\/a>, the Court stated that it shows that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has provided civil and penal consequences in case of forfeiture of the bond. Once the orders passed in those proceedings culminated into civil and penal action against the person who has violated the solemn undertaking, then he\/she must get a reasonable opportunity to contest those proceedings.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that before forfeiting the surety bond, the Court was required to issue a show cause notice as per the decision in Ghulam Mehdi v. State of Rajasthan<\/span>, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 148<\/a>. In the aforementioned case, the Supreme Court held that Section 514(2) of the CrPC<\/a> showed that before a surety becomes liable to pay the amount of the bond forfeited it is necessary to give notice why the amount should not be paid and if he fails to show sufficient cause only then can the Court proceed to recover the money.<\/p>\n

Placing reliance on Ghulam Mehdi (supra)<\/span>, the Court noted that in the present case, the Trial Court issued notice to the appellant and the appellant appeared and sought time to produce the accused in the Court. Thereafter, on the next date when the accused and the appellant were not present, bailable warrants were issued to secure their presence. In pursuance of the said order, the appellant appeared before the Court and undertook to produce the accused before the Court. Thereafter, vide the impugned order, personal and surety bonds of the accused were cancelled and proceedings under Section 446<\/a> CrPC<\/a> were initiated.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that hearing of the affected party, i.e., the appellant, was mandatory, as not affording such opportunity of hearing would be a gross violation of the principle of natural justice. Even after forfeiting the surety bond to the State, the Trial Court failed to issue a show cause to the appellant as to why the amount of the bail bond should not be realized from him by way of penalty.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court held that separate orders were required to be passed by the Trial Court, firstly, at the time of cancellation of bail bonds and secondly, at the time of imposing the penalty. The legislature, in its wisdom, has used the words “if sufficient cause is not shown for imposing penalty”, then hearing the person affected by the said order is mandatory under Section 446<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a>. In this case, the composite order was passed by the Trial Court, thereby depriving the appellant of the opportunity to put forward his plea regarding non-production of the accused.<\/p>\n

Consequently, the Court held that the impugned composite order did not pass the judicial scrutiny, and the Court was left with no option but to set it aside and remand the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication under Section 446<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of.<\/p>\n

[Bihari Lal v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine HP 1666<\/a>, decided on 09-05-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the appellant:<\/span> D.S. Kainthla<\/p>\n

For the respondent:<\/span> H.S. Rawat and Additional Advocate General Mohinder Zharaick<\/p>\n

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Code<\/a><\/p>\n

Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"protection<\/a><\/p>\n

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"penal<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Bare reading of Section 446 of the CrPC makes out a case wherein separate orders are required to be passed by the Court, firstly, at the time of cancellation of the bail bonds, and secondly, when the penalty is imposed.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":318873,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[39784,82278,82280,2929,82279,82281,82277,28064],"class_list":["post-348326","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-bail-bond","tag-bail-bond-cancellation","tag-composite-orders","tag-Himachal_Pradesh_High_Court","tag-imposing-penalty","tag-justice-virender-singh","tag-s-446-crpc","tag-surety"],"yoast_head":"\nSeparate orders required for bail bond cancellation and imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC: Himachal Pradesh HC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Himachal Pradesh HC allows appeal of penalised surety stating separate orders were required for bail bond cancellation & imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Separate orders required for bail bond cancellation and imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC\u2019; Himachal Pradesh HC allows appeal of a penalised surety, remands matter\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Himachal Pradesh HC allows appeal of penalised surety stating separate orders were required for bail bond cancellation & imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-05-20T04:30:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-05-23T04:01:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018Separate orders required for bail bond cancellation and imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC\u2019; Himachal Pradesh HC allows appeal of a penalised surety, remands matter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/\",\"name\":\"Separate orders required for bail bond cancellation and imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC: Himachal Pradesh HC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-05-20T04:30:30+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-05-23T04:01:30+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Himachal Pradesh HC allows appeal of penalised surety stating separate orders were required for bail bond cancellation & imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Himachal Pradesh High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Separate orders required for bail bond cancellation and imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC\u2019; Himachal Pradesh HC allows appeal of a penalised surety, remands matter\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Separate orders required for bail bond cancellation and imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC: Himachal Pradesh HC | SCC Times","description":"Himachal Pradesh HC allows appeal of penalised surety stating separate orders were required for bail bond cancellation & imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Separate orders required for bail bond cancellation and imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC\u2019; Himachal Pradesh HC allows appeal of a penalised surety, remands matter","og_description":"Himachal Pradesh HC allows appeal of penalised surety stating separate orders were required for bail bond cancellation & imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-05-20T04:30:30+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-05-23T04:01:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018Separate orders required for bail bond cancellation and imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC\u2019; Himachal Pradesh HC allows appeal of a penalised surety, remands matter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/","name":"Separate orders required for bail bond cancellation and imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC: Himachal Pradesh HC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2025-05-20T04:30:30+00:00","dateModified":"2025-05-23T04:01:30+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Himachal Pradesh HC allows appeal of penalised surety stating separate orders were required for bail bond cancellation & imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Himachal Pradesh High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/20\/separate-orders-required-bail-bond-cancellation-imposing-penalty-s-446-crpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Separate orders required for bail bond cancellation and imposing penalty under S. 446 CrPC\u2019; Himachal Pradesh HC allows appeal of a penalised surety, remands matter"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Himachal-Pradesh-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":318597,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/28\/separate-sureties-need-not-be-insisted-when-several-cases-against-accused-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":348326,"position":0},"title":"Separate sureties need not be insisted when there are several cases against an accused: Kerala HC","author":"Editor","date":"March 28, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThough the surety must be a sufficient surety, the quantum of the bond to be executed cannot be made to depend on the amount involved in criminal cases. Courts must of necessity, bear in mind that a criminal proceeding is not instituted to recover the money, if any, involved in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Kerala High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Kerala-High-Court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Kerala-High-Court-1.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Kerala-High-Court-1.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Kerala-High-Court-1.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":297922,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/28\/courts-cannot-initiate-criminal-proceedings-against-surety-orissa-hc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":348326,"position":1},"title":"Discharge of Sureties |Courts should not initiate criminal proceedings against the surety in case he seeks to discharge himself: Orissa HC","author":"Editor","date":"July 28, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The forfeiture of the bail bond without giving the opportunity of hearing to the surety is illegal and derogates principles of natural justice.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"orissa high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/orissa-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/orissa-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/orissa-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/orissa-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":236702,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/03\/hp-hc-synergy-of-law-with-technology-is-the-next-big-thing-stringent-conditions-laid-down-while-granting-bail-to-foreign-nationals-and-securing-their-presence-du\/","url_meta":{"origin":348326,"position":2},"title":"HP HC | \u201cSynergy of law with technology is the next big thing\u201d; Stringent conditions laid down while granting bail to \u2018foreign nationals\u2019 and securing their presence during trial in light of Art. 21 of Constitution","author":"Editor","date":"October 3, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: Anoop Chitkara, J., granted bail to the undertrial Nigerian national subject to very stringent conditions. The facts of the case are that the police arrested one Naresh Kumar for possessing 13.95 grams of heroin, later during investigation it was revealed that he had purchased this substance\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Himachal-HC_1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":247758,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/30\/bail-3\/","url_meta":{"origin":348326,"position":3},"title":"HP HC | Can bail be granted in cases where an accused is a foreign national and cannot furnish local surety in terms of S. 439 Cr PC? HC explains","author":"Editor","date":"April 30, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh High Court: Anoop Chitkara, J., granted bail and held that the law under Section 439 CrPC is very clear and in the eye of the law every accused is the same irrespective of their national. The facts of the case are such that an under-trial prisoner, holder of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":304232,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/10\/dhc-suggests-to-replace-shall-with-may-in-section483-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":348326,"position":4},"title":"[Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] Delhi HC suggests Select Committee to replace \u201cshall\u201d with \u201cmay\u201d and \u201cbail or bail bond\u201d with \u201cpersonal bond with or without surety\u201d","author":"Simranjeet","date":"October 10, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIt is observed that in Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the word \u201cshall\u201d means \u201cit is mandatory for the accused to furnish bail bond with surety\u201d.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":297834,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/27\/s4392-cr-pc-power-to-cancel-bail-only-on-high-court-or-court-of-session-orissa-hc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":348326,"position":5},"title":"S.439(2) confers power only on High Court or Court of Session to cancel bail granted under S. 436 of Cr.PC: Orissa HC","author":"Editor","date":"July 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"When it comes to the curtailment of the liberty of a person, it becomes incumbent for the Court to follow the principles of natural justice by giving the opportunity of hearing to the accused","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"orissa high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/orissa-high-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/orissa-high-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/orissa-high-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/orissa-high-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/348326","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=348326"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/348326\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/318873"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=348326"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=348326"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=348326"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}