INDAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against order dated 26-5-2004 passed by 1 Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Criminal M.J.C. No. 14/2004. The appellant had executed surety bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for accused Avendra Kumar alias Anu in Sessions Trial No. 59/2004 pending before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund. Accused Avendra Kumar alias Anu failed to appear before the said Court on 13-4-2004. Coercive steps were initiated against the appellant/surety. Notice was issued to the appellant under Section 446 Cr.P.C. and surety bond was forfeited. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- as penalty. The order was passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund. After issuing show cause notice to the appellant, as provided under Section 446 Cr.P.C., the notice was personally served upon the appellant and the appellant appeared before the said Court on 15-5-2004. The matter was adjourned for 20-5-2004 and thereafter for 26-5-2004. On 26-5-2004, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,500/- against forfeited surety bond and prayed for time to deposit the remaining amount. Thereafter, the appellant did not appear before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund. Due to non-appearance of the appellant before the said Court on 26-6-2004, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge issued recovery warrant against the appellant for recovery of remaining amount of forfeited surety bond through the Tahsildar, Mahasamund. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

(2.) Shri L.C. Das, learned counsel for the appellant/surety submitted that he is not pressing this appeal on merits and he would confine his arguments only to the recovery part of the impugned order. As regards recovery of the forfeited surety bond, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the case is pending for about 81/2 years and the appellant has already deposited the sum of Rs. 2,500/- before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Therefore, instead of making recovery of full amount of forfeited surety bond, it may be restricted to the amount already deposited by the appellant and rest of the amount may be remitted.

(3.) On the contrary, Smt. Madhunisha Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, supported the impugned order and pleaded for no interference with the same.