UTTAM PRASAD AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Smt. Abida was charge-sheeted under Section 18/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Accused was detained in jail. One kilogram of cannabis was allegedly recovered from her possession.

(2.) Accused Smt. Abida applied and was granted one month's parole by this High Court. She filed a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith two sureties of the like amount to enable her to be released on parole. On the date fixed, accused did not appear before the trial court. Non-bailable warrant was issued to her alongwith notices to her sureties. The sureties could not produce the accused. Proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against the sureties. Notices were again sent to the sureties. Neither did they appear in person nor deposited the money. Recovery warrant was issued to the sureties. Sureties were brought to the court concerned. They expressed their inability to deposit the money. They were sent to jail for six months. Again the sureties sought time from the court concerned to produce the accused, which was declined by learned Addl. Sessions Judge / I F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar. The property of the accused was also directed to be attached. A report was received to the effect that the accused has no moveable or immoveable property. Accused is also reported to be absconding from the given address.

(3.) In this way not only the accused misused the liberty of parole granted to her, but the sureties (present appellants) also failed to trace and produce the accused before the court concerned. The proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. were rightly initiated against the appellants. When the sureties failed to produce the accused despite having been given time for the same, they were rightly sent to jail to serve the imprisonment. There was, therefore, no question of granting them further time to produce the accused before the court concerned.