Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 30 (ORI)

K. DEBENDRA DORA v. STATE OF ORISSA

2006-01-20

A.S.NAIDU

body2006
A. S. NAIDU, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants assail the order dated 30/7/2004 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Aska in M. C. No. 121 of 2004 (S. C. No. 22/2004) imposing a penalty of Rs. 20,000. 00 (twenty thousand) on them, in default to suffer civil imprisonment for six months each. ( 2 ) THE materials on record reveal that both the appellants were bailors/sureties for one K. Ashok Kumar Dora, accused in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2004 pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Aska. As the said accused did not appear in Court after his release on bail, the Court below issued notice to the appellants calling upon them to produce the said accused in Court. After perusing the show-cause reply of the appellants, the Court below being not satisfied with that imposed the penalty on them as stated in the first paragraph above. Thereafter as the appellants did not pay the penalty, process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr. P. C. was issued to them. The NBWA issued against the appellants having been executed they were arrested, but they have been granted bail on their depositing the aforesaid penalty of Rs. 20,000. 00 before the Court below in consonance with the order of this Court passed on 29/9/2004. ( 3 ) MISS Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the appellants, forcefully submitted that the procedure adopted by the Court below culminating in imposition of penalty and issuance of NBWAs against the appellants was erroneous and contrary to the provisions of law and, as such, the entire amount paid by the appellants as penalty may be ordered to be refunded to them. She further submitted that the aforesaid accused K. Ashok Kumar Dora was later on arrested, faced the trial and has ultimately been acquitted in the case. ( 4 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the State at length. I have perused the materials on record. Fact remains, the appellants stood sureties for the accused. In consonance with the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an accused shall have to remain in custody. Such custody shall be either jail custody or the custody of the bailor (s ). I have perused the materials on record. Fact remains, the appellants stood sureties for the accused. In consonance with the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an accused shall have to remain in custody. Such custody shall be either jail custody or the custody of the bailor (s ). An accused released on bail shall have to remain in custody of the bailor who has the onerous duty to produce the accused in Court on each date the case against the accused is posted. Violation of the conditions of the bail-bond warrants cancellation of bail of the accused and consequent realisation of the surety amount from the bailor (s ). In the case at hand, admittedly the appellants failed to cause production of the accused in Court. The fact that the accused was subsequently arrested, faced the trial and was acquitted would not absolve the liability of the bailors under law. Thus I do not find any error in the order of the Court below. However, this Court feels that ends of justice will be better served if the penalty of Rs. 20,000. 00 imposed on the appellants is reduced to Rs. 5,000. 00 (five thousand) and orders accordingly.