Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 442 (PNJ)

Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana

2004-04-09

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2004
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - This order shall dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 24130 of 2003 as well as the main appeal. 2. The applicants-appellants, namely, Raj Kumar and Laje Ram, who were sureties to the bail bonds furnished by the accused Mangat, have filed the instant appeal against the orders dated 26.7.2002, 2.9.2002 and 9.5.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani. 3. Vide order dated 26.7.2002, the bail bonds furnished by the aforesaid two sureties were forfeited to the State of Haryana as they had failed to produce the accused as per their surety bonds and the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each was imposed upon them under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and they were directed to make payment of the said amount in the court on 2.9.2002. 4. Vide order dated 2.9.2002, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani issued a warrant for recovery of the amount of Rs. 25,000/- each from both the sureties to the Collector to recover the said amount as an arrears of land revenue, when both the appellants did not appear before the Court and sent the amount of penalty imposed upon them. 5. Vide order dated 9.5.2003, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed to recover the aforesaid amount by putting the appellants behind the bars and issued a warrant of arrest, when the Collector intimated that both the appellants did not make payment of penalty nor they came present in spite of the undertaking given by them. 6. Both the appellants stood as surety of accused Mangat, who is facing trial for an offence under Sections 364/342/120-B and 506 Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 98 dated 3.4.1997. When the aforesaid accused jumped the bail, notices were issued to the aforesaid sureties (appellants herein). In response to the notices, the appellants came present before the Court and sought time to produce the accused. But ultimately, on 26.7.2002, they had made a statement in the Court that they were unable to produce the accused in the Court. Thereupon, the aforesaid orders were passed against them. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants raised two-fold submissions. Firstly, that the appellants were not provided sufficient time to produce the accused and the order of forfeiting their surety bonds and imposing of penalty was passed without providing them proper opportunity of hearing and to lead evidence. Thereupon, the aforesaid orders were passed against them. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants raised two-fold submissions. Firstly, that the appellants were not provided sufficient time to produce the accused and the order of forfeiting their surety bonds and imposing of penalty was passed without providing them proper opportunity of hearing and to lead evidence. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Rajesh Kumar v. Nanak Chand, 1998(2) Recent Criminal Reports 670 (P&H). 8. Secondly, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each imposed upon the appellants, is excessive and, therefore, to meet the ends of justice, a remission should be granted to them as both the appellants stood surety for the accused being in relation, and they were not having an idea that the accused will jump the bail. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Mohammed Kunju v. State of Karnataka, 1999(4) Recent Criminal Reports 726 (SC). 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. I do not find any merit in the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. It is not the case of the appellants that no show-cause notice was issued to them and that they were not heard. From the order dated 26.7.2002, it is clear that the accused/appellants were present in the Court and they had made a statement that they were unable to produce the accused. In view of the said statement, no further opportunity, for leading evidence or hearing was required. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on Rajesh Kumars case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order dated 26.7.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge forfeiting the surety bonds of the sureties (appellants). 10. However, I find some force in the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, where he pleaded for remission of the penalty. The Honble Supreme Court in Mohammed Kunjus case (supra), has held that no doubt Section 446(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to grant such remission. 10. However, I find some force in the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, where he pleaded for remission of the penalty. The Honble Supreme Court in Mohammed Kunjus case (supra), has held that no doubt Section 446(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court to grant such remission. It is within the discretion of the court to grant remission and to decide the extent of the remission. Such a discretion must be exercised judicially and for good reasons. 11. In the instant case, the accused has been facing the trial under Sections 364/342/120-B and 506 Indian Penal Code and uptil now, he is absconding. The appellants had categorically stated before the Court that they were unable to produce the accused as he is not in their control and they stood sureties to the aforesaid accused being in relation. There is no allegation against them that they have connived with the accused in jumping out of the bail. In these circumstances, in my opinion, some remission can be granted to the appellants. To meet the ends of justice, a remission is granted to the extent that each of the appellants shall pay Rs. 15,000/- as penalty. The aforesaid remission will be valid provided the appellants pay the amount of penalty of Rs. 15,000/- each within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.