SIDDANNA BANDAPPA SUTAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent, admitted and taken up for hearing forthwith. The appellant offered himself as surety for one Geeta Sharma, who is the accused in a case pending before the Sessions Court at Pune. The said Geeta Sharma was ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 15,000/-, and the appellant who offered himself as surety in the said sum, was duly accepted as such. It appears that as the accused Geeta Sharma did not remain present before the Sessions Court, the bond executed by her for her appearance before the Court, stood forfeited. Thereafter, a notice came to be issued to the appellant in his capacity, as the surety of the said Geeta Sharma. It appears that when the notice was served upon him, the appellant appeared before the Sessions Court, and sought some time for producing the accused before the court. It also appears that the appellant, at that time, was made to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- for his presence before the Sessions Court on the next date. The order dated 19 June 2011 passed by the Sessions Court, in that regard, shows that it was stipulated that if the appellant would fail to produce the accused, the bond of Rs. 15,000/- executed by him would be forfeited, and he would be liable to be detained in civil prison for six months. It appears that the appellant could not, or did not, produce the accused before the Sessions Court.

(2.) On 20 December 2011, the Sessions Court, on receipt of a police report that a notice to show cause had duly been served upon the surety i.e. the appellant, observed that the appellant had failed to show cause and hence, directed issuance of a distress warrant for recovery of the bond amount of Rs. 15,000/-. On 25 September 2012, the surety appeared before the Sessions Court and made an application that, as he was unable to trace the accused, he was ready to pay the entire bond amount i.e. of Rs. 15,000/-. He submitted that the amount be accepted, and the surety be discharged. On this, the learned Sessions Judge passed an order observing, inter alia, that the surety should file an affidavit mentioning the places which he visited for searching the accused, and it is only thereafter, that the application made by surety, would be considered.

(3.) On 26 September 2012, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by detailed order made certain observations about the conduct of the appellant, and also his advocate, and stated that the presence of the appellant needed to be secured for sending him to civil prison for six months. The operative order that was passed by the learned Sessions Judge is as follows: "Issue non bailable warrant to the surety as he has flouted the above said orders and mandate of section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."