Meet Singh vs Punjab State
2024 Latest Caselaw 9947 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Meet Singh vs Punjab State on 8 May, 2024

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063647




CRA-S-1173-SB-1999                      -1              2024:PHHC:063647

101/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                                CRA-S-1173-SB-1999
                                                Date of Reserve: 07.05.2024
                                                Date of Decision:08.05.2024

Meet 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 Rawel 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:063647

CRA-S-1173-SB-1999 -2 2024:PHHC:063647

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:063647

CRA-S-1173-SB-1999 -3 2024:PHHC:063647

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:063647




CRA-S-1173-SB-1999                       -4            2024:PHHC:063647

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, 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 as the

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063647

CRA-S-1173-SB-1999 -5 2024:PHHC:063647

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