High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Ranbir v. State of Haryana - CRA-S-2347-SB-2006  RD-P&H 814 (23 January 2007)
Crl.Appeal No. 2347-SB of 2006
Date of Decision:- 19.1.2007
Mr.Deepak Gupta, Advocate.
State of Haryana .....Respondent(s)
Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
Crl.Misc.No.73991 of 2006
Notice to Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr.R.D.Sharma, learned DAG, Haryana, who is present in Court accepts notice.
The prayer in this application to condone the delay of 381 days in filing of the appeal.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the reasons mentioned in the application and the fact that the applicant- appellant has prima facie made out a case which requires consideration on merits, the application is allowed. The delay of 381 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Crl.Misc. application stands disposed of.
Crl.Misc.No.73991-M of 2006
This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.9.2005 whereby an amount of Rs.25,000/- was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner, who stood surety for Deepak-one of the accused in F.I.R.No.60 dated 23.2.2005 under Sections 398/401 IPC registered at Police Station, Chandnibagh, Panipat. It was also directed that the aforesaid amount be recovered from him by attachment and sale of property mentioned in the surety bond.
The appellant, however, deposited the said amount of Rs.25,000/- which finds mention in the order dated 21.11.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat.
Aggrieved at the forfeiture of the surety amount, the appellant has approached this Court.
The only ground argued on behalf of the appellant, is that the accused for whom the appellant stood surety, subsequently surrendered before the learned trial Court on 5.10.2005 and, thus, the Court ought not to have ordered recovery of the bond amount from the appellant.
There is no denial to the fact that the appellant stood surety for Deepak-one of the accused. It is also an admitted fact that the said accused remained absent from trial repeatedly and a number of efforts were made to secure his presence but without any positive result. In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 7.9.2005 whereby the bond amount of Rs.25,000/- was ordered to be recovered from the appellant.
The subsequent surrender by the accused, though, does not absolve the appellant from his liability which he incurred by standing as a surety, however, it appears to be a mitigating circumstance to reduce the amount of forfeiture.
Consequently and for the reasons afore-stated, this appeal is partly allowed, and the forfeiture amount of Rs.25,000/- is reduced to Rs.15,000/-.
January 19, 2007 ( SURYA KANT )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.