The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reduced the surety liability imposed on two persons who had furnished bonds for the temporary release of a prisoner on parole. Justice Manisha Batra held that although proceedings for breach of parole conditions could be initiated, recovering the entire ₹2 lakh surety amount from each petitioner was unduly harsh and disproportionate.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Shamsher Singh and another under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. They challenged a February 23, 2022 order of the District Magistrate, Rohtak, which directed forfeiture of ₹2 lakh furnished by each of them as surety for convict Sandeep.
Sandeep had been granted three weeks’ parole on April 6, 2020, to meet his family. During the parole period, another FIR was registered against him. The jail authorities treated the incident as a violation of the parole conditions and proceedings were subsequently initiated against the sureties.
The petitioners argued that they had not been found to have deliberately breached their obligations, nor was there any finding that they had assisted or knowingly supported the alleged conduct of the parolee. The State, however, maintained that the forfeiture order had been passed after issuing show-cause notices and following the procedure under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988.
Court’s Observation
Justice Manisha Batra referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohammed Kunju v. State of Karnataka, which recognises that a competent authority has discretion to reduce or remit a forfeiture depending on the circumstances.
The High Court observed:
“Before directing recovery of the entire amount, the authority is required to examine whether the sureties themselves were guilty of any deliberate default, negligence or connivance in the breach committed by the person for whom they had stood surety.”
The Court found that the District Magistrate’s order did not record any finding that the petitioners had facilitated the alleged conduct, knew about it, or connived with the parolee. It also did not explain why the maximum amount had to be recovered from each surety.
The Court further noted that a surety cannot reasonably be expected to maintain continuous physical control or surveillance over an adult parolee. In the absence of wilful negligence or active connivance, full forfeiture would not satisfy the principle of proportionality.
Decision
The High Court partly allowed the petition. It modified the District Magistrate’s order and reduced the recoverable surety amount from ₹2,00,000 to ₹50,000 for each petitioner.
The Court also directed that if any amount exceeding ₹50,000 had already been recovered from either petitioner, it should be refunded in accordance with law within eight weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Case Details
Case Title: Shamsher Singh and another vs. State of Haryana
Case Number: CRM-M-23119-2026 (O&M)
Judge: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Decision Date: 6 August 2026
