SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contour of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that, Paramjit Singh son of Surjit Singh (petitioner) was convicted and was undergoing the period of his sentence in Central Jail, Bathinda. He was temporarily released on parole for a period of four weeks, vide order dated 5.8.2005, subject to his furnishing surety bonds. Consequently, the petitioner stood surety and executed the bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- in this respect. Since the convict did not surrender after completing his period of parole of four weeks before the jail authorities, so, a notice was issued to the petitioner (surety), as to why the indicated surety amount be not recovered from him.

(2.) In pursuance of the notice, the petitioner appeared, filed the reply and sought time to search and produce the convict before the jail authorities. He could not produce the convict at the first instance and he was ordered to pay a penalty of Rs. 40,000/- in this regard within a period of one month, by the Additional District Magistrate, Bathinda, by virtue of impugned order dated 4.4.2006 (Annexure P4/T).

(3.) Aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed the appeal (Annexure P2), which was dismissed as well, by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, by way of impugned order dated 5.8.2006 (Annexure P1).