SHAKUNTLA RANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 21.2.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar has filed the present appeal to challenge penalty of Rs. 1 lac imposed upon her under Section 446 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that appellant-Shakuntala Rani was surety of accused Lakhvir Kumar in case FIR No. 74 dated 3.7.2012 registered under Sections 307/323/148/149/506 IPC at Police Station Division No.3, Jalandhar. Accused-Lakhvir Kumar was granted regular bail on 18.10.2012 on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ' one lac with one surety in the like amount. Accused-Lakhvir Kumar was appearing before the trial Court regularly but on 24.1.2013, he could not reach the trial Court as he was stopped by the police on the way, on which, his bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled and the amount was forefeited to the State and notice to the surety was issued. Accused-Lakhvir Kumar approached the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on the same day i.e. 24.1.2013 against order dated 24.1.2013, whereby, his bail bonds were cancelled, by stating that he was stopped by the police when he was on the way to Court and his absence was not wilfull and intentional but still his bail application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide order dated 1.2.2013. Thereafter on 21.2.2013, the impugned order was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar for recovery of the penalty amount of ' one lac from the appellant .

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that accusedLakhvir Kumar filed an application for bail before Sessions Judge on that very day when his bail bonds were cancelled but still the same was not considered. The circumstances as mentioned in the application made by accused-Lakhvir Kumar were beyond his control as no notice was issued to him. Learned counsel further contends that accused-Lakhvir Kumar surrendered before the trial Court and was allowed bail vide order dated 13.3.2013. Learned counsel also submits that amount of penalty imposed upon the appellant is on the excessive side and she being a poor lady is not in a position to pay the same. Even the accused for whom the appellant has furnished surety bonds has been granted regular bail by the trial Court and now he is attending the Court proceedings regularly. It is also the contention of learned counsel that penalty imposed upon the appellant may be reduced.