RAM PAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) This appeal preferred under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the order dated 02.04.1998, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 49 of 1995, whereby appellant Ram Pal, who stood surety in said trial for the accused, failed to deposit the amount for which the bond was furnished by him, and after notice, a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed against the appellant and orders for recovery of the same were issued. 2. This appeal was originally filed before the Allahabad High Court and was admitted there on 30.10.1998, from where it has been received by transfer to this Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000, for its disposal.

(3.) Brief facts are that a sessions trial No. 49 of 1995; State v. Sushil Kumar, under Section 394, 397, 120-B, 411, 412 of the I.P.C. and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, was in progress before the trial court. It appears that the accused, for which the appellant stood surety, at some stage failed to appear before the court and his bail was cancelled and bail bonds were forfeited. The surety Ram Pal appears to have been served with notice, but failed to show any cause as to why the recovery of the amount be not made from him. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 02.04.1998, amount of Rs. 50,000/-, the amount for which the appellant stood surety, was imposed as penalty and directed to be recovered from the appellant.