High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mam Chand & Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5243 of 2006  RD-AH 15862 (12 September 2006)
Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.
This appeal has been preferred by Mam Chand, Devi Singh, Sat Pal and Sanjeev Kumar against the order dated 5.8.2006 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court no. 6, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Case No. 2/11 of 2001 (State Vs. Mam Chand) under Section 446 Cr.P.C. whereby a direction was issued for recovery of surety amount against them.
Prosecution case are that the appellants stood sureties for accused Ravindra in S. T. No. 642/2000 under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act. Appellants No. 1 and 2 stood sureties for Rs. 25000/- for the accused against offence under section 307 IPC and the appellant nos. 3 and 4 stood sureties for Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section 25 Arms Act.
It appears that accused did not appear on 1.2.2001 and sureties were given notice after forfeiture of the bail bonds. Sureties filed explanation but did not appear to contest the same and the learned Trial Court directed for issuance of recovery warrant.
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the accused has been acquitted in this matter by judgement and order dated 15.10.2004 (Annexure No. 5).
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case surety amount as imposed on the appellants may be remitted.
Appeal is partly allowed and the appellants no. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit Rs. 5000/- and appellants no. 3 and 4 are directed to deposit Rs. 3000/- towards surety amount within a fortnight from today in the trial Court. In case the amount is not deposited, learned Trial Court shall take necessary steps to recover the complete amount from the sureties.
Copy of the order be issued within 24 hours as per rules.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.