Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 603 (PNJ)

Sadhu Ram v. State of Haryana

2012-04-23

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and oozing out, from the record, is that, a criminal case was registered against main accused Dharam Pal son of Bhunder, vide FIR No.135 dated 22.11.2006 under Section 25 of the Arms Act by the police of Police Station Dhand, District Kaithal. Petitioner Sadhu Ram stood surety of the main accused and submitted the surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-. On 20.4.2010, the main accused did not appear in the Court. His bail was cancelled and bail & surety bonds were forfeited to the State. In the wake of proceedings under Section 446 Cr.PC, the CJM imposed a penalty of entire amount of surety bond of Rs. 30,000/- on the petitioner, vide impugned order dated 11.8.2010 (Annexure P1). 2. Sequelly, in order to prove his innocence, the petitioner moved an application alongwith jail certificate (Annexure P2) to the effect that the accused could not appear on 20.4.2010 as he was confined in the District Jail, Karnal in some other case. Although the CJM observed that there was sufficient ground that the surety was not in a position to produce the accused in the Court for the aforesaid reason, but he dismissed the application mainly on the ground that he has no power to review its earlier order (Annexure P1), by virtue of another order dated 28.10.2010. 3. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.8.2010 (Annexure P1) and order dated 28.10.2010, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed as well, by the appellate Court, by way of impugned order dated 9.4.2011. 4. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, challenging the impugned orders, invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC. That is how I am seized of the matter. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be partly accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record, that the petitioner stood surety of the main accused and submitted the surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-. 6. As is evident from the record, that the petitioner stood surety of the main accused and submitted the surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The accused could not appear in court on 20.4.2010 and his bail was cancelled and bail and surety bonds were forfeited to the State. Strange enough, the CJM did not comply with the provisions of section 446 Cr.PC and imposed a penalty of total amount of surety bond of Rs. 30,000/- on the petitioner in a very routine and casual manner. The same very mistake was committed by the appellate Court. The bare perusal of the jail certificate (Annexure P2) would reveal that accused Dharma son of Bhunder was detained in District Jail, Karnal on 20.4.2010 in another case registered against him, by means of FIR No.214 dated 9.9.2007 under sections 393 and 398 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Butana, Distt.Karnal. 7. In this manner, once it is proved that the accused was confined in some other case on the relevant date, then he was unable to appear without production warrant by the Court and petitioner-surety cannot possibly be blamed in this relevant connection. No doubt, the petitioner did not turn up in the trial Court to explain his position, but that ipso facto is not a cogent ground to impose the entire penalty of Rs. 30,000/- on him. It is not a matter of dispute that the main accused has already been acquitted in the present case under the Arms Act by the CJM, vide order dated 5.7.2011. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, to me, the impugned orders are harsh, arbitrary and cannot legally be sustained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is partly accepted. A penalty of amount of Rs.30,000/- of surety bond is reduced to an amount of Rs.1000/-. The impugned orders are accordingly modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. Needless to mention that compliance of the order and natural consequences would follow accordingly. ----------------------