JASVENDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revisions have been filed under Sec. 397, Cr. P. C, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'code') against the similar orders of the Additional Sessions Judge Sri Raisinghnagar dated September 28, 1981 by which he dismissed the three appeals filed under Section 449 of the Code and affirmed the orders of the Munsif cum-Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar dated May 12, 1981, directing the recovery of the entire amounts of the bail bonds furnished by the petitioners. The facts of the case giving rise to these revisions may be summarised thus.

(2.) A case under Sections 307, 148 and 149, I. P. C. was pending against the accused-petitioners Jasvender, Jeet Singh and Nasib Singh in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. Personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ - each and surety bonds of the like amount were furnished by the petitioners on February 12, 1980. It appears that the case was sent under Section 328 of the Code to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. The bail bonds were forfeited as the accused-petitioners failed to appear before him on 3. 11. 80. Three separate files in respect of each accused were opened. These cases were subsequently transferred by the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar to the Court of the Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar vide order-sheets dated March 2, 1981. The petitioners appeared before him and filed their similar replies in all the three cases. Their replies are that the accused-petitioners did not appear before the Court on November 3, 1980 due to apprehension that they would be killed by the police, showing an encounter with them in connection with the F. l. R. No. 177 dated October, 7,1980 of the Police Station, Anupgarh. The learned Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar was not satisfied with their replies and, accordingly ordered for the recovery of the entire amounts of the bonds by his orders dated May 12, 1981. All the three accused and their sureties preferred appeals under Section 449 (1) of the Code before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar. Their appeals were dismissed by his orders dated September 26, 1981 against which these revisions have been filed.

(3.) NOW the question arises whether the accused-petitioners had shown sufficient cause for their non-appearance on November 3, 1980. All of them have stated in their replies that they did not appear before the Court on this date as they had apprehension that they would be killed by the police, showing an encounter with them in FIR No. 177 dated 7. 10. 80 of the Police Station, Anup-garh. In the proceedings under Section 446 (I), notices were issued to the accu-sed-petitioners for 5. 1. 81. These notices were received unserved with the report that they were absconding from their villages due to fear of their arrest by the police. The order-sheets of all the three cases of March 2, 1981 recite that the accused-petitioners are said to be in jail in connection with a case. These facts do not support their replies that they apprehended that the police would kill them, showing as an encounter.