Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 628 (MP)

Jairam v. State of M. P.

2006-05-02

S.A.NAQVI

body2006
ORDER 1. With the consent of parties heard finally at the motion stage. Perused the record and impugned order. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.9.2001 passed by Second ASJ, Shivpuri in Criminal Case No. 24 of 2001 (MJC No. 13 of 2004) whereby personal bond amount of Rs. 10.000/- (Rs. ten thousand) has been forfeited. 3. The brief facts of the case are that in sessions trial 261 of 1996 appellant Jairam furnished personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) and a solvent surety in the like amount. During trial, after issuing notice to appellant forfeited amount of personal bond of Rs. 10.000/- (Rs. ten thousand) and issued recovery warrant against appellant and in default sentenced him to undergo six months civil imprisonment. Appellant has been arrested on 23.3.2006 and he is facing trial before the trial Court. 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that since appellant has been arrested and is facing trial, amount of Rs. 10.000/ (Rs. ten thousand) which were forfeited is on higher side and there is no justification in recovering the said amount. He also argued that forfeited amount be reduced. He relied upon the order dated 11.11.2005 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 677 of 2005 [Shishuplil Singh v. Stale of M.P]. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the appeal and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. On perusal of record admitted facts are revealed that appellant Jairam has been released un furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10.000/- (Rs. ten thousand) and during trial, he absconded. Learned trial Court registered MJC No. 13 of 2005 and issued notice to the appellant. Appellant did not appear on 18.9.2001. Consequently, learned trial Court forfeited Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) of personal bund of appellant. In the case of Shishupal Singh (supra). criminal case has been finally disposed of and appellant was convicted and sentenced. In appeal, he was sentenced to six months RI with fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) under section 325 of IPC. Looking to these facts, fine amount i.e. to say forfeited amount of personal bond has been induced. In the present case, appellant Jairam absconded and a non-bailable warrant was issued against him and he was arrested and produced before the trial Court. He is facing trial. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) under section 325 of IPC. Looking to these facts, fine amount i.e. to say forfeited amount of personal bond has been induced. In the present case, appellant Jairam absconded and a non-bailable warrant was issued against him and he was arrested and produced before the trial Court. He is facing trial. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is a labourer and he went in search of labour work to Kotu Rajasthan that is why, he could not appear before the trial Court but at present, he is regularly appearing before the trial Court after enlargll1g on bail by the trial Court. 7. Considering the above facts, I do not find any justification in forfeiting amount of personal bond to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand). Consequently, appeal is partly allowed. Instead of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand), it is directed that the amount of personal bond to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. three thousand) shall be forfeited. Appellant has deposit Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) towards forfeiture of personal bond. It is directed that if he has deposited Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand), after deducting Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. three thousand), remaining amount of Rs. 7.000/- (Rs. seven thousand) be refunded to appellant Jairam. Appeal is allowed with the above modification.