Smt. Dhyan Kunwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2381 MP

   1       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    M.Cr.C. No.15886/2021
               Smt Dhyan Kunwar Vs. State of M.P.

              Heard Through Video Conferencing
Gwalior, Dated:15/06/2021

       Shri Brijendra Singh, Advocate for applicant.

       Shri BPS Chauhan, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.

This application is under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment

of recovery warrant dated 4/2/2021 issued against the applicant for

recovery of surety amount.

It is the case of the applicant that the applicant had stood as a

surety for one Kansraj who jumped bail and accordingly, his bail

bonds were cancelled. The notices were issued to the applicant in the

year 2010 to show cause as to why the bail bond may not be

recovered. After receiving the show-cause notice, the applicant did

not contact her counsel and, therefore, her reply was not filed and in

absence of any reply, the surety amount of Rs.40,000/- has been

forfeited and the recovery warrant has been issued.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the

applicant is an old lady aged about 92 years and the accused was

arrested at a later stage, therefore, the recovery warrant may be

quashed.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

It is conceded by the counsel for the applicant that once an

accused jumps bail and his bail bonds are forfeited, then the surety

amount can be recovered from the surety irrespective of the fact that 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.15886/2021 Smt Dhyan Kunwar Vs. State of M.P.

as to whether the accused was subsequently arrested or not. It is

fairly conceded by the counsel for the applicant that on 15/12/2009

the counsel for the applicant appeared her on behalf and sought time

for filing reply. On 8/3/2010 and 31/10/2010 the applicant did not file

her reply to the show-cause notice and accordingly, by order dated

19/4/2010 on account of non-appearance of the applicant and in

absence of her counsel, the surety amount of Rs.40,000/- was

forfeited and RRC was issued. It is further submitted that in the light

of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Adalat

Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and others reported in (2004) 7 SCC

338, the Magistrate has no power to review its earlier order.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.

By the impugned order dated 4/2/2021, the court below has

refused to recall the recovery warrant on the ground that the surety

bond was forfeited by order dated 19/4/2010 and the court below has

no jurisdiction to review its earlier order by recalling the recovery

warrant.

The applicant has not given any explanation as to why she did

not respond to the show-cause notice issued to her in the year 2009,

specifically when her counsel had also marked his presence on her

behalf. It appears that the applicant after furnishing the surety, took

the situation for granted and did not care to respond to the show-

         3     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       M.Cr.C. No.15886/2021
                  Smt Dhyan Kunwar Vs. State of M.P.

cause notice issued to her in the year 2009 on account of non-

appearance of the accused, and also did not make any effort to get the

accused arrested. Thus, it is clear that no case is made out for

interference in the matter.

Accordingly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2021.06.21 10:29:17 +05'30'