HUKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 7.5.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Deeg (Bharatpur), whereby the learned Judge has passed an order for recovery of the surety amount to the tune of Rs. 20,000.00 from the appellant in the proceedings under Sec. 446 Crimial P.C., the appellant has approached this Court.

(2.) It is the case of the appellant that he had stood as surety for one Rakesh Jaiswal, who was facing trial in Sessions Case No.330/2009, before the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Deeg (Bharatpur). As a surety, the appellant had given a surety of Rs. 20,000.00. However, during the course of trial Mr. Rakesh Jaiswal jumped the bail. Therefore, proceedings under Sec. 446 Crimial P.C. were initiated against the appellant vide order dated 7.5.2010. The learned trial court directed the Tehsildar, Kumher to attach and auction the property of the appellant in order to recover the surety amount. Eventually the amount of Rs. 20,000.00 was realised. Therefore, this petition for reduction in the amount of surety.

(3.) Mr. Ambrish Vashishtha, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that on 6.10.2010, the Tehsildar, Kumher has deposited the surety amount before the trial court. However, considering the fact that the petitioner happens to be an eighty-eight years old man, who is not even physically fit and is suffering from dire poverty, the learned counsel pleads that the surety amount so forfeited should be reduced by this Court. In order to buttress his contention that the surety amount so realised should be reduced, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Mohammed Kunju and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, (1999) 8 SCC 660 and on the case of Puspendra Meena Vs. State of Rajendra, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 429 of 2009 decided on 7th April, 2010 .