IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 04.03.2025 Shri Bhagwan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SHEKHAWAT Present : Mr. Nitin Bhanwala, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, DAG, Haryana.

N.S.SHEKHAWAT , J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby, the application (Annexure P-1) moved by the petitioner for discharging the surety was ordered to be dismissed in a case arising out of FIR No. 904 dated 14.11.2015 under Sections 13, 7, 8 of PC Act read with Section 120-B, 468, 420 of IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act registered at Police Station Jind City, District Jind.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a case FIR No. 904 dated 14.11.2015 under Sections 13, 7, 8 of PC Act read with Section 120-B, 468, 420 of IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act Police Station Jind City was ordered to be registered against Rajesh Khasa, respondent No. 2 and other accused and during investigation, the respondent No. 2 was ordered to be released on bail. The petitioner stood as a surety for respondent No.2/accused and had furnished surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Court, which were accepted and at that time an endorsement was made by the concerned revenue official that in compliance of the order passed by the trial Court, the agricultural land to the extent of the share of the petitioner was attached for the surety amount. During trial, the petitioner/applicant moved an application (Annexure P-1) before the trial Court stating that he wanted to alienate his land. However, due to the above said endorsement, he was not able to alienate his land. Consequently, he did not want to stand as surety for the accused any more and wanted that his surety bonds may be discharged and the endorsement in the revenue record may be ordered to be removed. However, vide the impugned order (Annexure P-2), the prayer made by the petitioner was declined by the Court on the ground that the grounds mentioned in the application were not sufficient and reasonable for allowing the application. Learned counsel further contends that the trial Court had clearly overlooked the mandatory provisions of Section 489 of the BNSS, 2023 and the trial Court had committed grave error while passing the impugned order.

3. On advance notice, Mr. Rajinder Kumar Banku, DAG, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of the State of Haryana and submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner has been rightly declined by the trial Court and the petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

4. I have heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Before delving into the question as to the legality of the impugned order, this Court would like to refer to Section 489 of the BNSS, 2023 which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in the present case:-

489. Discharge of sureties.

(1)All or any sureties for the attendance and appearance of a person released on bail may at any time apply to a Magistrate to discharge the bond, either wholly or so far as relates to the applicants.

(2)On such application being made, the Magistrate shall issue his warrant of arrest directing that the person so released be brought before him.

(3)On the appearance of such person pursuant to the warrant, or on his voluntary surrender, the Magistrate shall direct the bond to be discharged either wholly or so far as relates to the applicants, and shall call upon such person to find other sufficient sureties, and, if he fails to do so, may commit him to jail.

From a perusal of this section, it is apparent that it is always open to a surety to apply to the Magistrate to discharge the surety bond furnished before him either wholly or partly and in such an eventuality,