Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGANNATH & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jagannath & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6308 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17918 (18 October 2006)

 

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 OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

This appeal has been preferred by Jagannath and Septtar against the judgement and order dated 3.10.2006 whereby the appellant have been directed to pay surety amounts under Section 446 Cr.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned judgement.

Admit.

Brief facts of the case are that appellants stood surety for accused Lala Ram in S. T. No. 434 of 2003 under Sections 302, 201 IPC. Accused Lala Ram absented on 23.6.2006. Notice were issued to the sureties also but they did not file any reply thereof. However, these appellants produced the accused in the Court on 13.9.2006. Learned Trial Court finding that sureties had not given any reply and had not shown any reasons for the absence of the accused and further finding that it was the responsibility of the sureties to produce the accused on every date directed for the recovery of the surety amount against them.

Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the  appellants has contended that the appellants are poor person and that they have already produced the accused in the Court and has prayed that this penalty amount be reduced.

Accused stood sureties for Rs. 25,000/. In the circumstances particularly in view of the fact that they have surrender the accused in the Court, surety amount can be reduced to half and therefore the appeal is to be partly allowed.

Appeal is partly allowed. Appellants are directed to deposit half of the surety amount as imposed on them within a fortnight from the date of the order. In case they fail to deposit they shall be liable to pay the entire penalty amount as imposed on them.

Dated: 18.10.2006

RKS/6308/06


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.