RAGHUBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 11/9/2013 passed by respondent No.l vide which the surety amount of Rs.1,50,000.00 from each of the petitioner was forfeited.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that as per letter dtd. 1/3/2021 of the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon, furlough of two weeks was granted to the convict Sunil @ Leader son of Sh. Ram Kumar, resident of Mohalla Jatwara, Bawal, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari and the petitioners had given a surety of Rs.1,50,000.00 each, for complying with the terms and conditions of the said furlough which was verified from the Tehsildar Bawal. Accordingly, the said convict was released on furlough on 9/3/2011 for two weeks and was directed to surrender in District Jail, Narnaul on 24/3/2011. However, since the said convict did not surrender upon the completion of two weeks, thus, case No.56 dtd. 19/4/2021 under Sec. 8/9 of the Police Station, Balwal was registered and proceedings were initiated for the recovery of surety amount given for the furlough and show cause notice was issued to the petitioners. A reply was filed to the said show cause notice, in which it was submitted that the convict was admitted in Civil Hospital, Rewari due to illness and the doctor had advised him rest for 07 days and regarding the said fact, the sureties had given oral information at the Police Station, Bawal. It was further submitted that the petitioner had not committed any negligence/lapse in the matter and that they are poor persons and they can hardly bear the expenses of their families and, therefore, the surety amount of Rs.1,50,000.00 each as mentioned in the surety bond not be forfeited and the case be filed. The District Magistrate, Rewari, after hearing both the parties forfeited the amount of Rs.1,50,000.00 each, as mentioned in the surety bond and observed that in case the petitioners failed to deposit the said amount, then the recovery would be effected as a due of land revenue.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order imposing deposition of Rs.1,50,000.00 on each of the petitioners is very harsh inasmuch as there was no finding of the Court that the petitioners had or were acting in collusion with the said accused. It is further submitted that in fact the convict Sunil was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Rewari and has referred to the admission record of Sunil dtd. 23/4/2011 (Annexure P-l) to substantiate the same. It is also submitted that the convict Sunil had himself surrendered after recovering from his illness and the averments to this effect have been specifically made in paragraph 11 of the petition to which there is no specific denial. Paragraph 11 of the petition is reproduced hereinbelow:-