Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 134 (ORI)

P. PAPAMMA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2003-02-18

A.S.NAIDU

body2003
A. S. NAIDU, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants, who stood sureties of accused M. Niranjan Patro in S. C. No. 230/2001 of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati at Berhampur have preferred this appeal praying to set aside the Order dtd. 1-11-2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in M. C. No. 3 of 2002 arising out of Sessions Case No. 230 of 2001. ( 2 ) THE short facts leading to the case are that accused M. Niranjan Patro and others were facing trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge and during pendency of the trial, the said accused was released on interim bail. The present appellants stood sureties for the said accused on executing a bail-bond of Rs. 15,000. 00 each. The learned Sessions Judge released the accused on interim bail with a direction to surrender before the Court below on 31st July, 2002. Since the accused did not surrender on the date fixed, Non-bailable Warrant of Arrest was issued and the bail-bonds furnished by the present appellants were forfeited. The learned Sessions Judge also directed to initiate a separate Misc. Case, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 3 of 2002 and the appellants were directed to show cause as to why the amounts under the bail-bonds would not be realised from them. On 8-10-2002, the date fixed for appearance of the present appellants, they appeared and prayed for time to file their show cause and the case was adjourned to 1-11-2002. ( 3 ) WHILE the matter stood thus, on 15-8-2002 accused M. Niranjan Patro was arrested and remanded to jail custody. In view of the fact that the accused was arrested and was remanded to jail custody, the appellants with the impression that their responsibility had ceased, did not take any step in the Misc. Case. The learned District Judge, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, without realising the fact that the accused had already been arrested, disposed of the Misc. case directing the present appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 as penalty, in default to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of three months. The Sessions Judge also directed the learned C. J. M. , Berhampur to take steps for realisation of the fine amount. ( 4 ) IT is forcefully contended by Mr. case directing the present appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 as penalty, in default to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of three months. The Sessions Judge also directed the learned C. J. M. , Berhampur to take steps for realisation of the fine amount. ( 4 ) IT is forcefully contended by Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellants that the accused, whose attendance was secured by the present appellants having already been arrested, the responsibility of the appellants came to an end. Further Mr. Nayak submitted that before forfeiting the bail-bonds, the law required that an opportunity should be given to the bailors i. e. appellants and since such opportunity was not given and the bail-bonds were cancelled suo motu, the order of forfeiture of bail-bonds was vitiated which should be set aside, and as a logical corollary, the subsequent orders passed by the Court imposing penalty must be held to be vitiated and bound to be set aside. In support of his contentions, Mr. Nayak relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Gananath Panda v. State of Orissa, reported in (1989) 68 Cut LT 743. ( 5 ) LAW is well settled that before decision is taken to forfeit a bail-bond, a hearing of the affected party becomes the demand of natural justice. Not-affording such an opportunity of hearing would be gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the order of forfeiture would be liable to be quashed on that account. A perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that as the accused did not surrender after expiry of the interim bail, the bail-bonds were forfeited with direction to start a separate Misc. Case. This order, was passed without giving an opportunity to the bailors and thus the same suffers from the vice of non-observation of the principles of natural justice. ( 6 ) ADDED to the aforesaid facts, it appears from the Order dated 15-8-2002 that the accused, M. Niranjan Patro was arrested and produced in Court. Thus, the responsibility, if any, of the appellant-bailors for production of the accused came to an end. ( 7 ) A cumulative reading of the entire ordersheets would lead to an irresistible conclusion that while initiating a proceeding for realisation of the amount from the appellants, proper law as prescribed was not followed. Thus, the responsibility, if any, of the appellant-bailors for production of the accused came to an end. ( 7 ) A cumulative reading of the entire ordersheets would lead to an irresistible conclusion that while initiating a proceeding for realisation of the amount from the appellants, proper law as prescribed was not followed. Thus, the order dated 1-11-2002 is not sustainable in law and I have no hesitation to set aside the same and I order accordingly. The subsequent orders passed also consequently become nullity in the eye of law. ( 8 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed.