Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rawel Singh vs Punjab State on 8 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063628
CRA-S-1167-SB-1999 -1 2024:PHHC:063628
101 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-1167-SB-1999
Date of Reserve: 07.05.2024
Date of Decision:08.05.2024
Rawel Singh ...Appellant
Vs.
Punjab State ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present: Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate
as Amicus Curiae for the appellant.
Mr. Arjun Sheoran, DAG, Punjab.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 449 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to set aside the order dated
13.11.1999 passed by the Court of Sh. Gurnam Singh, the then Additional
Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby a penalty of Rs.50,000/- i.e. the amount
of surety bond, was imposed on him and the same was ordered to be recovered
from him as arrear of land revenue.
2. As per the case set up by the prosecution, on 26.08.1999, Baljinder
Singh accused was granted the concession of interim bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like
amount and was directed to surrender before the Trial Court on 24.09.1999.The
appellant and one more person namely Meet Singh had stood sureties for
Baljinder Singh in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each. However, on 24.09.1999,
Baljinder Singh did not surrender in the Court and his bail bonds and surety
bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State and was ordered to be
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063628
CRA-S-1167-SB-1999 -2 2024:PHHC:063628
summoned through non-bailable warrants. However, notice was issued to the
appellant and another surety to produce Baljinder Singh, accused. As per the
prosecution, the appellant and another surety were given opportunities and they
could not produce Baljinder Singh, accused. Ultimately, they were directed to
pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- each as penalty i.e equal to the amount of the surety
bond.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact, Baljinder
Singh, accused was granted the concession of interim bail vide order dated
26.08.1999 in case FIR No.78, dated 28.07.1999, under Section 15 of the NDPS
Act, registered at Police Station Garhshankar. On 26.08.1999, he was granted
interim bail by the Trial Court and was directed to surrender on 24.09.1999.
However, he did not appear before the Trial Court and on 16.10.1999
non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against him. Since non-bailable
warrants issued against Baljinder Singh, accused were received back
unexecuted, the proclamation was issued against him on 30.10.1999 and was
declared as proclaimed offender on 13.12.1999. Thereafter, the orders were
issued for attachment of his property and the warrants for his arrest were also
issued. At this stage, a report was received that Baljinder Singh, accused had
been detained in Central Jail, Ludhiana in some other case and he was produced
before the Trial Court on 09.09.2000 from Central Jail Ludhiana. Learned
counsel for the appellant further submits that since Baljinder Singh, accused
was confined in Central Jail, Ludhiana in some other case and this fact was not
within the knowledge of the appellant as well as the Trial Court. Consequently,
the appellant could not produce the accused and no fault can be attributed to
him. Learned counsel further contends that even in the present case, neither any
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063628
CRA-S-1167-SB-1999 -3 2024:PHHC:063628
show cause notice was ever issued to the appellant as to why his surety to the
tune of Rs.50,000/- be not forfeited nor any satisfaction was recorded by the
Trial Court before forfeiting the bond, in the present case. Learned counsel
further contends that the Court was under a legal duty to record the grounds of
proof of forfeiture of the bond and a show cause notice should have been issued
to the appellant as to why the surety amount should not be forfeited. After
issuance of notice, if sufficient cause has not shown by a surety, the Court may
impose penalty on the surety. He further refers to the law laid down by the
Allahabad High Court in the matter of "Mahmood Hasan and Another Vs.
State" criminal appeal No.2610 of 1975, decided on 01.08.1979, wherein it
was held as follows:-
"The record does not show that before forfeiting the surety bonds
the Court below gave any notice to the appellants to show cause as
to why the surety bonds be not forfeited. The rule of natural justice
requires that before any adverse order is passed the person
concerned should be given an opportunity of being heard. No such
opportunity was given to the appellants. Therefore, the appellants
could not be called upon to pay the sum of Rs.500./-"
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in the
present case, Baljinder Singh accused was in custody in some other case in
Central Jail, Ludhiana. This fact, was neither in the knowledge of the appellant
nor the Trial Court was aware of the said fact. Even the prosecution did not lead
any evidence to show that Baljinder Singh was confined in some other case in
another jail. Apart from that, Baljinder Singh, lateron, was taken in custody
through production warrants from Central Jail, Ludhiana on 27.09.2000 and
was also convicted by the Trial Court.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063628
CRA-S-1167-SB-1999 -4 2024:PHHC:063628
5. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that in the present
case, the appellant had furnished surety to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and was
legally bound to produce the accused, Baljinder Singh on 24.09.1999. Since he
failed to produce the Baljinder Singh, accused in the present case, the penalty
has been correctly imposed on him.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record carefully.
7. It is not in dispute that in the present case, it was found that during
the course of trial Baljinder Singh, accused had been detained in Central Jail,
Ludhiana in some other case and he was directed to be produced before the
Trial Court by issuing production warrants and in compliance of the warrants,
he was brought from Central Jail, Ludhiana on 27.09.2000 and was produced
before the Trial Court. Apart from that, Baljinder Singh, accused was later on
tried also and vide the judgment dated 19.04.2001, he was convicted under
Section 15 of the NDPS Act and ordered to be sentenced to undergo RI for a
period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-,along with default
stipulation.
8. Apart from that, no doubt, Baljinder Singh did not appear before
the Trial Court on 24.09.1999, but it has been found that he was confined in
Central Jail, Ludhiana in some other case. Consequently, production warrants
were issued by the Trial Court and in compliance of said warrants, he was
brought from Central Jail, Ludhiana on 27.09.2000 and was produced before
the Trial Court. Thus, it was impossible for the appellant to produce the accused
before the Trial Court on specific date i.e. 24.09.1999 as he was confined in
some other case and this fact was not in the knowledge of the appellant as well
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063628
CRA-S-1167-SB-1999 -5 2024:PHHC:063628
as the Trial Court. Consequently, this Court finds sufficient force in the
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was
not in a position to produce Baljinder Singh, accused and no fault can be
attributed to the appellant. Moreover, from the record it is apparent that no
show cause notice was ever issued by the Trial Court in terms of Section 446 of
Cr. P.C. nor the Trial Court had recorded the grounds of proof of forfeiture of
the bond in the present case. Thus, it is also evident that the mandatory
provision, as laid down by Section 446 of the Cr. P.C had not been followed
and the impugned order is legally unsustainable.
9. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the present appeal is
allowed and the order dated 13.11.1999 passed by the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur is hereby ordered to be set aside.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed off, accordingly.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
08.05.2024 JUDGE
hitesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
