ABDUL REHMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code filed by Abdul Rehman and three others against the Judgement of the Additional District Magistrate, Jodhpur dated 22nd November, 1962 whereby he upheld the order of the City Magistrate, Jodhpur, dated. 17th August, 1962 and confirmed the forfeiture or the bail bonds submitted by the four petitioners.

(2.) THE facts of this case are that a case under Sections 420, 200 and 120 B Indian Penal Code was registered by the Station House Officer, Police Station, Udai Mandir against four accused persons Raghubir Singh, Balbir Singh, Balhar Singh and Darsan Singh, and as a consequent thereof they were taken in custody of the police. The police obtained the remand for these are used up to 27th December, 1961 but they were produced before the Court with a prayer on 26th December, 1961 that they may be sent to the judicial lock -up. On 29th December, 1961 the police made a request to the court that the investigation; in the case was not complete and, therefore, a remand of 15 days may be again granted. In the meantime, all the four accused persons applied for their release on bail and, the City Magistrate ordered that the accused persons may be released provided they furnish personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 2000/ - and two sureties of Rs. 1000/ - each, and the police authorities were also directed to file the challan on 15th January, 1962. All the accused furnished their personal bonds on 30th December, 1961, and each one of the petitioners stood surety for two accused persons for the amount of Rs. 1000/ -. The surety bonds were also filed in the court of the City Magistrate on 30th December, 1961 and the accused were ultimately released on bail.

(3.) ON 15th January, 1962 all the accused were present in the court of the City Magistrate, but the challan could not be put up and, therefore, the learned Magistrate passed an order that challan be put up on the 30th January, 1962. It may be noted that in that order learned Magistrate did not direct the accused persons to present themselves in Court on 30th January, 1962, On the next date also i.e. 30 -1 -62, the police could not put up the challan, and it was only Darsan Singh accused who was present In the court on that date. For the rest of the accused persons an application was moved by their counsel praying that their presence may be exempted for that day. The learned City Magistrate exempted the presence of the three accused per -sons but directed the counsel to produce them in court on the next date which was fixed as 5th March, 1962, and the police authorities were also directed to put up the challan on that date. On 5th March, 1962 it so happened that only two accused Darsan Singh and Balhar Singh were present in the court and on behalf of the other two absentee accused, their counsel again submitted an application to excuse their absence for that day. The police failed to produce challan on. That date also and, therefore, the learned Magistrate, while excusing the absence of the absentee accused persona, directed the counsel to produce those two accused on 24th March, 1902 which was fixed for filing the challan. It is alleged that on 24th March, 1962 all the four accused absented themselves and, therefore, the learned Magistrate passed an order forfeiting their personal bonds and surety bonds and a notice was issued to the sureties, that is, the petitioners to show cause why the penalty may not be imposed on them. The court, also, issued bailable warrants for the arrest of the accused persons. All the tour surety -petitioners filed their reply to the show cause notice, issued to them but it so appears that only two out of them pursued the proceedings in the court.