LALCHAND MOUR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 401 read with 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directed against an order dated 15.9.79 passed by Shri A.S. Choudhury, sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta forfeiting the bail bond executed by the petitioner as bailor of accused Shri Sri Ram Sharma and asking him to show cause why he should not deposit the amount specified in the bail bond. I extract the relevant order: p15979 Bailor is absent. No steps of any kind. Heard the submission of the Advocate and perused case records. The bailor never produced the accused. Hence the amount of bail bond is forfeited. The bailor to show cause as to why he should not deposit the amount.

(2.) Learned Magistrate started proceeding under Section 446 of the Criminal who stood bailor of accused against Shri Sri Ram sarma in casa 30/78 for Rs. 3030/-. The bailor showed Cause but the case could not be taken up on 108.78, 11.9.78, 26.10.78, 7.12.78, 26.10.78, 7.12.78, 8.12.78 and 22.1.79. On 6.3.79, learned Magistrate was on leave so the case was posted on 11.479 which was also a holiday. There after the matter was adjourned till 2.5.79. On 25.79 notices were issued on the bailor and he appeared on 13.7.79. The hearing was fixed on 14.8.79. Hearing commenced on 14.8.79 and learned Magistrate heard the case on behalf of the bailor and directed that the original case records should be put up on 15.9.79. I extract the order here in below: 14.8.79. Hearing taken on the side of the bailor. Put up the original case record. For orders- 15.9.7911 It appears that learned Magistrate fixed the case on 15.9.79 as the date for orders. There was no direction given to the bailor to be present on that day. Learned Magistrate heard the case of the bailor on 14.8.79. However, it is clear from the impugned order which is extracted above that learned Magistrate took exception as to why the bailor was absent and why no steps were taken by him. Learned Magistrate heard counsel, perused records and rendered the order.

(3.) Mr. J. Singh, Public Prosecutor, Assam could not satisfy me as to why learned Magistrate did not discuss anything about the case or claim of the bailor. It appears that the petitioner took as many as four grounds in Annexure BT and as many as five points in Annexure c which were filed on 10.8.79 and! 8.7.79 respectively. None of the points taken by the bailor was considered.