Judgment S. S. SARON, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 31.7.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon whereby an amount of Rs 15,000/- has been imposed as penalty on the appellant. The remaining amount of Rs 10,000/- which was furnished as surety by the appellant for accused Ravi @ Ravinder stands remitted. 2. Accused Ravi @ Ravinder along with others was being tried for offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC as also Sec.25 of the arms Act before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. Ravi @ ravinder was granted bail and the appellant Rajpal stood surety for him. He furnished surety bond for an amount of Rs 25,000/- on 20.9.2005 with the undertaking that the accused shall appear on each and every date of hearing. On 14.2.2006 the accused did not appear and consequently notice was issued to the surety. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused were cancelled and forfeited to the State. On receipt of notice, the surety (appellant) stated that in fact the accused was in custody in some other case at Delhi. However, later on it transpired that the accused was not in custody on 14.2.2006. In the circumstances, penalty of Rs 15,000/- has been imposed and remaining amount of Rs 10,000/- has been remitted by the impugned order dated 31.7.2006. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that as per information received by the appellant, the accused was in custody in some other case in delhi. In any case, he was produced before the trial Court and, therefore, the imposition of penalty of Rs 15,000/- is highly excessive. It is submitted that the appellant is a poor person and, therefore, the penalty imposed is liable to be reduced. 4. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner made a wrong statement that the accused was in custody in Delhi whereas he was not in custody. Therefore, the imposition of penalty is proper. 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it is appropriate to note that the appellant though had stated that the accused was in custody in some other case in Delhi on 14.2.2006, yet he was not in custody on the said date and later on the accused Ravi @ Ravinder stated that he had been in custody only for the last 10-12 days. In the circumstances, Ravi @ Ravinder accused was admittedly in custody though not on 14.2.2006. Therefore, the imposition of penalty of Rs 15,000/- would be highly excessive. This is more so for the reason that the appellant is stated to be a poor person. As such, it would be just and expedient that the amount of penalty is reduced to Rs 5,000/-. 6. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of and the penalty imposed on the appellant is reduced from Rs 15,000/- to Rs 5,000/-, otherwise the order shall stand as it is and the appellant shall make payment of the penalty amount of Rs 5,000/- within two months from today.