LAWS(P&H)-2015-12-408

SUKHWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

Decided On December 04, 2015
SUKHWINDER KAUR Appellant
V/S
State Of Haryana And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), is directed against the order dated 7.4.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Kaithal-respondent No.2, whereby surety amount of Rs. lacs furnished by Late Sh. Baldev Singh, husband of the petitioner, was forfeited and the same was ordered to be recovered from his immovable property, by arrears of land revenue.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not in dispute that Late Sh. Baldev Singh, husband of the petitioner, stood surety for the prisoner namely Daler Singh, for his release on parole in case FIR No. 32 dated 23.6.2010 under Sections 15/25 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Dharamgarh, District Sangrur. When the convict Daler Singh was on parole, he came to be arrested on 22.1.2015 by the Uttar Pradesh Police in FIR No. 22 dated 22.1.2015 under Sections 8/15 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Chandosi District Muradabad (UP) and was in police custody. This was the reason that Daler Singh could not surrender before the jail authorities, Sangrur, on 24.1.2015. He refers to the death certificate dated 8.9.2015 of Late Sh. Baldev Singh (Annexure P-1) to justify the maintainability of the present petition by the petitioner who is widow of Late Sh. Baldev Singh. He concluded by submitting that although the deceased-surety provided the material information to respondent No.2, about the arrest of prisoner by the UP Police, yet the said material fact was not properly appreciated by respondent No.2, while passing the impugned order, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. He prays for setting aside the impugned order, by allowing the present petition.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that since the husband of the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of his surety bond, respondent No.2 has rightly passed the impugned order and the same deserves to be upheld. He prays for dismissal of the present petition.