The Allahabad High Court has held that a recovery warrant cannot be issued against a person for the alleged breach of a bond that was never executed in the first place, clarifying that the amount specified in an order to furnish a bond does not constitute an automatically recoverable monetary liability under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Ruling on a criminal revision petition, Justice Praveen Kumar Giri set aside the recovery proceedings of Rs. 50,000 against a husband, observing that statutory forfeiture procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) presuppose the actual execution of the bond.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from proceedings under Section 12 read with Sections 17, 18, 19, and 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act, 2005), initiated by Neelam Pundeer against her husband, Kapil Dev Pundeer. On June 3, 2025, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) / Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ghaziabad, directed the revisionist husband to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with an undertaking not to commit any violence against his wife and minor son during the pendency of the case.
Aggrieved by this direction, the revisionist preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the Act, 2005 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No. 2, Ghaziabad. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on April 29, 2026, affirming the trial court’s order.
Subsequently, although the revisionist had not executed the bond or furnished the undertaking, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ghaziabad issued a recovery warrant against him on August 18, 2026, citing a breach of the undertaking. The revisionist then approached the High Court challenging the orders, alongside an application seeking condonation of a 28-day delay, which the High Court allowed after finding the cause shown to be sufficient. During the proceedings, the High Court also called for an explanation/report from the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6, Ghaziabad, regarding whether a recovery warrant could legally be issued in the absence of a breach of an executed bond.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist had admittedly not furnished or executed the bond or the undertaking till date. Therefore, it was contended that no question of any breach could arise, and in the absence of an executed bond, the recovery warrant could not have been legally issued.
Opposing the plea, counsel for the wife (opposite party no. 2) submitted that under Section 19(3) read with Section 23(2) of the Act, 2005, a Magistrate is empowered to require a respondent to execute a bond, with or without sureties, to prevent domestic violence where there is a likelihood of its commission. Furthermore, counsel for the wife and the Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) argued that although no specific provision prescribes the procedure for issuing a recovery warrant without the breach of a bond, Section 28(2) of the Act, 2005 enables the court to lay down its own procedure for the disposal of applications under Section 12 or Section 23(2).
Court’s Analysis
Examining the statutory framework, Justice Praveen Kumar Giri evaluated Sections 19(3), 19(4), and 28(2) of the Act, 2005, alongside Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 491 of the BNSS. The Court noted that Section 19(3) empowers the Magistrate to direct the execution of a bond, while Section 19(4) deems such an order to be an order under Chapter VIII of the Cr.P.C. or Chapter IX of the BNSS.
The Bench observed that when an executed bond is breached, the procedure under Section 446 Cr.P.C. / Section 491 BNSS mandates that the court record the grounds of satisfaction regarding forfeiture, call upon the person to pay the penalty or show cause, and only if sufficient cause is not shown and penalty remains unpaid, recover the sum as a fine. The Court noted:
“Therefore, in a case where the respondent has actually executed the bond pursuant to an order under Section 19(3) of the Act, 2005 and subsequently commits a breach of the conditions thereof, the amount mentioned in the bond does not become automatically recoverable merely upon the allegation of breach.”
Differentiating the present case, the Court highlighted that the revisionist had admittedly never executed the personal bond or submitted the undertaking. Addressing this distinction, the Court held:
“In the absence of execution of the bond itself, there can be no question of forfeiture of such bond on account of breach of any of its conditions. The amount of Rs.50,000/- mentioned in the order dated 03.06.2025 represents the amount of the bond which was required to be executed and cannot, merely by reason of its being specified in the order, be treated as a sum automatically recoverable from the revisionist. Consequently, the procedure relating to forfeiture and recovery of the penalty under Section 446 Cr.P.C./491 BNSS would necessarily presuppose the existence of an executed bond and its subsequent forfeiture in accordance with law.”
The Court also rejected the argument that Section 28(2) permitted the issuance of the warrant, observing:
“Section 28(2) cannot be construed so as to dispense with the statutory requirement governing forfeiture of a bond which has been duly executed, particularly when Section 19(4) itself specifically provides that an order under Section 19(3) shall be dealt with in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Cr.P.C./Chapter IX of the BNSS.”
Consequently, the Court held that the issuance of the recovery warrant for Rs. 50,000 could not be sustained.
Decision of the Court
Taking note of the revisionist counsel’s statement that the revisionist was now ready and willing to furnish the bond, the High Court granted him 20 days’ time to execute the personal bond of Rs. 50,000 along with the undertaking in terms of the trial court’s order dated June 3, 2025.
The Court further directed the trial court to make every endeavour to conclude the Section 12 proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months, after providing adequate opportunity of hearing without granting unnecessary adjournments. The Court clarified that if the revisionist breaches the conditions after executing the bond, the consequences shall be dealt with strictly under the statutory provisions governing forfeiture. With these directions, the criminal revision was disposed of.
Case Details:
Case Title: Kapil Dev Pundeer Versus State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Revision Defective No. 1774 of 2026
Bench: Justice Praveen Kumar Giri
Date: September 23, 2026
