JAIMAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant being surety of accused Vinod was not able to produce accused Vinod, he being in judicial custody on the date of hearing, when said accused was marked absent. Penalty of Rs.50000/- has been imposed under Section 446 Cr.P.C. Said Vinod had been produced in the Court on the basis of the production warrant issued by the trial Court. In view of above circumstances, it is apparent that the appellant had not violated the terms and conditions of the bail bonds. The order of awarding penalty under Section 446 Cr.P.C. appears to be hard and unreasonable.

(2.) Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana. On the asking of the Court, Ms.Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana, accepts notice. Copy given.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and I am of the opinion that bail bonds regarding Vinod were cancelled on August 22, 2012 and warrants issued for September 3, 2012. The appellant being a surety had moved an application on September 3, 2012 informing the court that production warrants of Vinod be issued for next date of hearing to the Superintendent, Central, Jail, Hissar where Vinod was lodged.