Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pirthi And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 6 December, 2022
CRM-M-15363-2017 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
236
CRM-M-15363-2017 (O&M)
Date of decision: 06.12.2022
PIRTHI AND ANOTHER
....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG Haryana.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated
03.03.2017 passed by the respondent No.2 vide which, forfeiture of surety amount
of Rs.1 lakh each to the petitioners is ordered to deposit in Government Treasury
within 10 days from the date of order.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had
submitted surety bonds of Rs.1 lakh each before respondent No.2 for grant of four
weeks' parole by the Jail authorities to prisoner-Balbir Singh, who was convicted
under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC in FIR No.53 dated 08.05.2008
registered at Police Station Rajound District Kaithal and was undergoing life
imprisonment. As per the order of grant of parole, the said prisoner was to
surrender on 25.08.2016 (a/n) in the Jail. However, the said prisoner did not
surrender on 25.08.2016, on completion of the period but surrendered on the next
day i.e.26.08.2016.
The petitioner were issued show cause notice as to why the surety
1 of 4
CRM-M-15363-2017 (O&M) -2-
amount not be forfeited and deposited in the Government Treasury for which they
were directed to appear before the District Magistrate on 03.03.2017. The order
by the District Magistrate was passed on 03.03.2017, Annexure P-1, whereby the
surety amount of Rs.1 lakh each was ordered to be forfeited and deposited in the
Government Treasury. It was further ordered that sureties should deposit the said
amount in the Government treasury within a period of 10 days, failing which
immovable property mentioned in the surety bonds was to be auctioned to recover
the said land revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the reason
for the prisoner Balbir Singh to have not surrendered on 25.08.2016 was that
while he was working in fields of paddy crops, at about 5PM he was bit by a
snake on account of which his condition became serious and the petitioners along
with other family members of prisoner-Balbir Singh took him for treatment to
Nagnath Temple situated at Village Ghogharian, District Jind, where he was
treated in a customary manner. On the recovery of his health, the petitioners
handed him over to the Jail authorities in the early morning i.e., on 26.08.2016. It
is thus that the delay in making him surrender had occurred which was not
intentional but rather was to only to first save his life. An affidavit in this regards
has also been submitted jointly by the petitioners dated 22.04.2017, Annexure P-
2. The petitioners are small farmers and very poor persons, who are not in a
position to pay the surety amount is the submissions of the learned counsel with a
prayer to take a lenient view considering the reason of less than 01 day delay in
making the prisoner Balbir Singh surrender before the Jail authorities.
He submits that as per Section 8 and 9 of the Punjab Good Conduct
Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act 1962 to submit that where the
convict/prisoner does not surrender on expiry of parole he gets 10 days' grace
2 of 4
CRM-M-15363-2017 (O&M) -3-
period to surrender before the jail authorities, failing which only the penalty
mentioned therein can be imposed. However, since the prisoner had surrendered
on the very next day, the order of desposit of Rs.1 lakh each was illegal and
arbitrary.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Dalvir Vs. State of Haryana, 2013(5)RCR (Criminal)
787, wherein this Court had modified the order of District Magistrate and reduced
the amount of Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.20,000/- to be forfeited to the State.
Learned State counsel opposed the prayer made by the petitioners on
the ground that the order passed by the District Magistrate was legal and valid and
required no interference, it being well reasoned order.
Heard.
It is apposite to advert to the facts of the case in so much so that there
was reason, as explained by the petitioners for delay caused in making the
prisoner Balbir Singh surrender on 26.08.2016 instead of 25.08.2016, which
being a snake bite, for which an affidavit has also been sworn in by the
petitioners. It is on account of the aforesaid reason and the said prisoner not being
in good health that the delay had occurred in making him surrender. However, on
the very next day in the morning of 26.08.2016 the petitioners had handed him
over the jail authorities.
This Court in the case of Bhajan Singh and another Vs. State of
Punjab and others had modified the order of deposit of Rs.1 lakh surety amount
to Rs.25,000/-, wherein the delay in surrender of the prisoner was on account of
he being under treatment of a doctor, due to which he had surrendered after 5
days.
3 of 4
CRM-M-15363-2017 (O&M) -4-
Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in
particular that there is a justifiable explanation given by the petitioners on account
of which the prisoner had surrendered on 26.08.2016 instead of 25.08.2016 and
the petitioners being poor farmers, as also in view of the aforesaid order passed by
this Court, the impugned order dated 03.03.2017, Annexure P-1 is modified to the
extend of Rs.15,000/- each be deposited by the petitioners.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
December 06, 2022
S.Sharma(syr)
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
