Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 April, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
CRA-S-3312-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061754
250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-35798-2019 in/and
CRA-S-3312-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 18.04.2024
Gurpal Singh ....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present:- Mr. Munish Raj Chaudhary, Advocate
for the applicant/appellant.
Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.
*****
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
CRM-35798-2019
This is an application for condonation of delay of 560 days in
filing the appeal.
For the reasons stated in application, this Court is satisfied that
the applicant/appellant has shown sufficient cause to condone delay in filing
the appeal. Application stands allowed. Delay of 560 days in filing the
appeal is condoned.
integrity of this judgment/order
CRA-S-3312-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061754
CRA-S-3312-2019 (O&M)
This is an appeal filed under Section 449 Cr.P.C. against order
dated 05.03.2018 passed by Judge Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
2. Appellant stood surety for Bohar Singh and Karamjit Kaur who
were booked in FIR No.28 dated 19.07.2016, registered under Sections 367,
342, 323, 506, 201 & 34 IPC, at Police Station Lakhewali.
2.1. Both the accused absented before the Trial Court on 14.11.2017
without information. Their bail was ordered to be cancelled and bail bonds
and surety bonds were ordered to be forfeited to the State. They were
ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants for 04.01.2018.
2.2. On 04.01.2018, both Bohar Singh and Karamjit Kaur
surrendered before the Trial Court. They were sent to judicial custody.
Both of them earned acquittal on 06.07.2018.
2.3. However, on 05.03.2018 the impugned order was passed. The
Appellant was ordered to pay a penalty of Rs.50,000/- i.e. the bail amount.
Warrants of recovery were ordered to be issued to the District Collector
authorizing him to realize the amount as arrears of land revenue from
movable or immovable or both properties of the Appellant.
3. Counsel for the Appellant while assailing the impugned order
submits that since both the accused surrendered before the Trial Court on
the very next day i.e. 04.01.2018, the Appellant was under impression that
he has complied with the conditions of bail and thus would not be saddled
with any penalty.
integrity of this judgment/order
CRA-S-3312-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061754
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through
records of the case.
5. As per the settled proposition of law, in order to saddle the
surety with penalty there has to be an allegation that he had any remote
scent that the accused was trying to evade law or that he had connived with
the accused in jumping bail. Reference can be made to law laid down by
Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Kunju vs. State of Karnataka,
AIR 2000 SC 6, wherein it has been observed as under:-
"xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
15. Lastly, learned Counsel made a plea for remission of the
penalty. No doubt Section 446(3) of the Code empowers the
court to grant such remission. It is within the discretion of the
court to grant remission and to decide the extent of the
remission. Such a discretion must be exercised judicially and
for good reasons. Learned counsel cited the decisions of this
Court in Madhu Limaye v. Metropolitan Magistrate and
Ors. (1984 Supple. SCC 699). A three Judge Bench of this
Court considered the plea advanced by a surety who was
proceeded against as the accused-some foreign nationals-
escaped from India. They were students charged with offences
of "trivial nature" in 16 cases altogether. This Court held that
in such circumstances "the ends of justice will be met by
imposing a token penalty of Rs. 100". In the present case,
though the offences charged against the foreign national are
not trivial they are nevertheless not very serious comparatively.
The accused slipped out of the country without anybody's
knowledge and thereby rendered himself beyond the reach of
the appellant. The court could have imposed the condition to
surrender his passport as a measure to prevent him to escape
out of India. There is no allegation that the appellant had any
integrity of this judgment/order
CRA-S-3312-2019 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:061754
remote scent that the accused was preparing to escape from
India, nor that he had connived with the accused jumping out
the bail.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx"
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the
present appeal is allowed. Since the accused surrendered on the very next
day and there is no allegation that the Appellant was conniving with them,
the impugned order dated 05.03.2018 passed by Judge Special Court, Sri
Muktsar Sahib saddling the Appellant with penalty of Rs.50,000/-, is hereby
ordered to be set aside.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
( PANKAJ JAIN )
JUDGE
April 18, 2024
ashish
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
integrity of this judgment/order
