Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM KUMAR & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Kumar & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8220 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18821 (12 December 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 43

Criminal Appeal No. 8220 of 2007

1.Ram Kumar son of Sohan

2.Mahendra son of Jee Ram

Both residents of village and P.O. Chauri Mandi

Police Station Chilkana, District Saharanpur.......Appellants

versus

State of U.P..................................................................... Respondents

Hon'ble B.A. Zaidi, J.

1.Appellants Ram Kumar and Mahendra are sureties of accused Bitto in Sessions Trial No. 502/2006 under section 376 I.P.C. pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6,Saharanpur.

2.The accused absented himself and the trial court ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrant and also proceeded under sections 82 and 83 Cr. P.C. against him and under section 446 I.P.C. against the sureties. On their request, the court allowed them time to produce the accused, but they failed and absented themselves, therefore, the court on 19.11.2007 in criminal miscellaneous proceeding ordered for recovery of surety amount (penalty) against them.

3.That is what brings the appellants here in appeal.

4.Heard Sri Anil Kumar Aditya, Advocate for the appellants and Sri Sanjay Sharma, Addl. Government Advocate for the State at this stage itself in this appeal.

5.The contention of counsel for the appellants is that the order is ex parte. From order sheet dated 19.11.2007 it will not seem true. Contention rejected. The counsel further contended that they be allowed some more time to produce the accused. On enquiry from the counsel, is there some law to support it, he failed to cite any such law. Once the accused absented himself in a case and trial court forfeited his bail bonds and issued notices under section 446 Cr. P.C. to the sureties and also gave opportunity to them to produce the accused, the court was well within his right to order for realisation of surety amount from them.

6.Appeal dismissed in limine.

Dated: 12.12.2007

SU. 8220-07


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.