SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner stood surety of accused Anil Kumar. He is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Courts below whereby penalty of Rs.25,000/- imposed by the trial Court under the provisions of Section 446 CrPC has been upheld by the Appellate Court.

(2.) The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner furnished a surety bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- before the trial Court for appearance of the accused Anil Kumar son of Ram Pal, resident of Indra Colony, Tohana Road, Narwana, District Jind who was facing trial for offence under Section 382 IPC in FIR No.7 dated 9.1.2011. The aforesaid accused absconded from the court proceedings and, thereafter, he was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 8.2.2012. On the very same day, his bail and surety bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State. A penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner under section 446 CrPC.

(3.) At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is on excessive side and he being the poor person, is not in a position to pay the same. He further submits that there is no material available on record to show that the petitioner was connived with the accused in jumping out bail. He further submits that no sufficient time was given to make search and produce the accused in the Court, despite the fact that the petitioner had made requests for the aforesaid purpose. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered in Mohammed Kunju v. State of Karnataka, 2000 AIR(SC) 6, learned counsel contends that penalty imposed may kindly be reduced.