Supreme Court Reduces Bond Forfeiture Amount in Security for Peace Case: Istkar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) INSC 1005 (11 November 2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the forfeiture of a bond for keeping the peace under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) can be for an excessive amount, and whether the court has the power to reduce the penalty.

CASE TYPE: Criminal

Case Name: Istkar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

[Judgment Date]: 11 November 2022

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 November 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 1005

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

Can a court order the forfeiture of a large sum of money as a penalty for violating a bond to maintain peace, especially when the person is a daily wage earner? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue, focusing on the proportionality of bond amounts and the court’s power to reduce penalties. The core question was whether the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was right in upholding the forfeiture of a ₹5,00,000 bond imposed on the appellant for allegedly breaching peace. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia. The majority opinion was authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari.

Case Background

The case revolves around Istkar, the appellant, who was required to furnish a bond of ₹5,00,000 under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to maintain peace during the 3-tier Panchayat Elections. The Sub-Inspector of Police Station Bhaura Kalan, Muzaffarnagar, reported that Istkar and 25 others were likely to disturb the peace. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Budhana, initially required Istkar to furnish a bond under Section 116(3) CrPC and later bound him down under Section 117 CrPC. Subsequently, a report was filed by the Revenue Inspector/Lekhpal alleging that Istkar had undertaken illegal construction on a public pond and had quarreled with and obstructed officials when they came to inspect the site on 02.07.2021. Based on this, the Magistrate forfeited the entire bond amount of ₹5,00,000.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Budhana, ordered the forfeiture of the bond on 23.07.2021 after Istkar failed to respond to a notice under Section 122 CrPC. The Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar, dismissed Istkar’s revision petition on 08.09.2021, upholding the Magistrate’s order. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad also declined to interfere with the lower court’s orders in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on 19.07.2022, stating that there was no illegality or material irregularity in the orders. The Supreme Court then took up the matter, limiting its scope to the question of reducing the bond amount.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

• Section 107: “Security for keeping the peace in other cases. —(1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.” This section allows a Magistrate to demand a bond from a person likely to cause a breach of peace.
• Section 111: “Order to be made. — When a Magistrate acting under section 107, section 108, section 109 or section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required.” This section outlines the procedure for the Magistrate to issue an order requiring a person to show cause.
• Section 116: “Inquiry as to truth of information. — (1) When an order under section 111 has been read or explained under section 112 to a person present in Court, or when any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate in compliance with, or in execution of, a summons or warrant, issued under section 113, the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken, and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary.” This section details the inquiry process the Magistrate must follow.
• Section 117: “Order to give security. — If, upon such inquiry, it is proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as the case may be, that the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made should execute a bond, with or without sureties, the Magistrate shall make an order accordingly: Provided that— (b) the amount of every bond shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive;” This section mandates that the bond amount should not be excessive.
• Section 120: “Contents of bond. —The bond to be executed by any such person shall bind him to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour, as the case may be, and in the latter case the commission or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence punishable with imprisonment, wherever it may be committed, is a breach of the bond.” This section explains the conditions of the bond.
• Section 122(1)(b): “Imprisonment in default of security. —(1) **** **** **** (b) If any person after having executed a bond, with or without sureties for keeping the peace in pursuance of an order of a Magistrate under section 117, is proved, to the satisfaction of such Magistrate or his successor- in- office, to have committed breach of the bond, such Magistrate or successor- in– office may, after recording the grounds of such proof, order that the person be arrested and detained in prison until the expiry of the period of the bond and such order shall be without prejudice to any other punishment or forfeiture to which the said person may be liable in accordance with law.” This section outlines the consequences of breaching the bond.
• Section 446: “Procedure when bond has been forfeited. —(1) Where a bond under this Code is for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court and it is proved to the satisfaction of that Court or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, that the bond has been forfeited, or where, in respect of any other bond under this Code, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which the bond was taken, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, or of the Court of any Magistrate of the first class, that the bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid. (3) The Court may, after recording its reasons for doing so, remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only.” This section provides the procedure for forfeiture and allows for partial remission of the penalty.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the amount of ₹5,00,000 was excessive, especially considering he is a daily-wage earner.
• It was contended that the bond was executed for the Panchayat Elections, which had concluded, making the bond redundant.
• The appellant submitted that the forfeiture was arbitrary, based on an ex parte report without proper appreciation of facts.

State’s Submissions:

• The State argued that the orders of the High Court, Revisional Court, and Magistrate were in accordance with the law.
• It was submitted that the appellant was given sufficient time to respond to the notice under Section 122 CrPC but failed to do so.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the amount payable by the appellant under the bond in question should be reduced.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Pertaining to security for keeping the peace.
• Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Pertaining to the order to be made.
• Section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Pertaining to the inquiry as to truth of information.
• Section 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Pertaining to the order to give security.
• Section 120 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Pertaining to the contents of bond.
• Section 122(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Pertaining to imprisonment in default of security.
• Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Pertaining to the procedure when a bond has been forfeited.

Authorities Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court used Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to highlight the preventive nature of the provision, emphasizing that it’s not meant to be punitive.
• The Court relied on Section 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to underscore that the bond amount should not be excessive, and should be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case.
• The Court used Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to point out the discretionary power of the court to remit any portion of the penalty.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the proportionality of the bond amount and the financial capacity of the appellant. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to prevent breaches of peace, not to impose excessive financial burdens. The Court also considered the fact that the Panchayat Elections, for which the bond was initially executed, had already concluded. The Court noted that the appellant, being a daily-wage earner, would find it extremely difficult to pay the bond amount of ₹5,00,000. The Court also took note that the fine for the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which the Revisional Court had pointed out, was only ₹500, making the bond amount highly disproportionate.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual considerations (the appellant’s financial status, the completion of elections) and legal interpretation (the purpose of Section 107 and the discretionary power under Section 446). The factual aspects of the case weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision.

The Court reasoned that while the appellant had allegedly violated the terms of the bond, the penalty was disproportionate to the violation and the appellant’s financial condition. The Court emphasized that “…the object of furnishing security and/or executing a bond under Chapter VIII of the Code is not to augment the state exchequer but to avoid any possible breach of peace for maintaining public peace and tranquillity.” The Court also noted that “the amount of bond shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive.” The Court further stated, “This clearly enunciates that even when a person fails to show sufficient cause as to forfeiture of the bond amount, the Court is not bound to direct payment or recovery of the entire bond amount.”

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations of the law that would have supported the forfeiture of the full bond amount. The Court’s decision was based on the principle of proportionality and the need to ensure that the law is not used to impose excessive burdens, especially on vulnerable individuals.

The Supreme Court held that the forfeiture of the entire bond amount of ₹5,00,000 was excessive. The Court reduced the amount to a nominal sum of ₹5,000, considering the nature of the alleged breach, the appellant’s financial status, and the fact that the purpose of the bond had been achieved with the completion of the Panchayat Elections. The Court emphasized that the bond amount should not be punitive but should be proportionate to the circumstances.

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

• The bond amount was disproportionately high for a daily-wage earner.
• The purpose of the bond, maintaining peace during elections, had been fulfilled.
• The forfeiture was based on an ex parte report without proper opportunity for defense.
• The fine for the alleged offence under Section 186 IPC is only ₹500, making the bond amount excessive.
• Section 446 CrPC allows the court to remit a portion of the penalty.

Key Takeaways

• The amount of a bond for keeping the peace must be proportionate to the circumstances and should not be excessive.
• Courts have the discretion to reduce the penalty amount of a forfeited bond, especially when the person is of limited financial means.
• The purpose of security bonds is to maintain peace, not to augment state revenue.
• Ex parte decisions should be approached with caution, especially when they impose significant financial burdens.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant to deposit the reduced amount of ₹5,000 within six weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment copy.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the amount of a bond for keeping the peace under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should not be excessive and must be proportionate to the circumstances of the case and the financial capacity of the person required to furnish the bond. This judgment clarifies that courts have the power under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to remit a portion of the penalty, particularly when the full amount is disproportionate and would cause undue hardship. This decision reinforces the principle that preventive measures should not be punitive in nature and that the financial capacity of the individual must be taken into account when imposing penalties. There is no change in the previous position of law but this judgment reinforces the existing position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Istkar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant reminder that the power to demand security for maintaining peace should be exercised judiciously. The Court emphasized the need for proportionality and fairness, particularly when dealing with individuals of limited means. By reducing the bond forfeiture amount from ₹5,00,000 to ₹5,000, the Supreme Court ensured that the law serves its intended purpose of maintaining peace without imposing excessive financial burdens on citizens.