Right of Surety to Seek Discharge Under Section 489 BNSS Cannot Be Denied on Ground That Bail Was Granted by High Court; Trial Court Must Permit Discharge of Surety and Call for Fresh Sureties, Holds Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Bhagat Ram and Another v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 03 July 2026

Citation: CRM-M-32293-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that Section 489 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 444 CrPC) confers a statutory right upon a surety to seek discharge from a bail bond at any stage. The discharge of a surety does not amount to modification of the order granting bail or suspension of sentence. Upon such an application, the Magistrate is bound to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 489 BNSS by securing the presence of the accused, discharging the existing surety, and providing the accused an opportunity to furnish fresh sureties.

Summary: The petitioners had stood as sureties for an accused whose sentence had been suspended by the Punjab & Haryana High Court during the pendency of his appeal. Subsequently, they sought to withdraw as sureties because they intended to sell the agricultural land against which the surety was secured. The accused expressed his willingness to furnish fresh solvent sureties in their place.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed their application on the ground that the surety bonds had been accepted pursuant to the High Court’s order suspending sentence and, therefore, any change in surety could only be permitted by the High Court.

Allowing the petition, the High Court held that the trial court had misconstrued the scope of Section 489 BNSS. The Court clarified that substitution or discharge of a surety does not alter the order granting bail or suspension of sentence. It merely substitutes one surety with another while keeping the bail conditions intact. Section 489 BNSS casts a mandatory obligation upon the Magistrate to secure the accused’s presence, discharge the existing surety upon appearance of the accused, and require the accused to furnish fresh and sufficient sureties. Rejecting such an application solely on the ground that bail had been granted by the High Court was held to be legally unsustainable.

The Court relied upon Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, Ritesh v. State of Haryana, and Pradeep Kumar Das v. State of Odisha to reiterate that discharge of a surety does not extinguish the bail order and that the statutory right available to a surety cannot be defeated on jurisdictional misconceptions.

Decision: The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad. The matter was remitted to the trial court with directions to proceed strictly in accordance with Section 489 BNSS by securing the presence of the accused, discharging the petitioners from their obligations as sureties, and affording the accused an opportunity to furnish fresh and sufficient sureties. The Court further clarified that if the accused fails to furnish fresh sureties, the Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with law.