Punjab-Haryana High Court
Meena Rani vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 October, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141696
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
214
CWP-22664-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.10.2024
Meena Rani ...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Nirbhay Garg, Advocate and
Mr. Amrinder K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG Punjab.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated
13.04.2020 passed by respondent No.2- District Magistrate Fatehgarh Sahib,
whereby respondent No.3- Assistant Collector 1st Grade-cum-Naib
Tehsildar, Mandi Gobindgarh, Fatehgarh Sahib was directed to recover the
amount of Rs. 2 lakhs in lieu of the bond furnished by the petitioner in
favour of her son/convict-Suraj Kumar.
2. Briefly summarized the facts of the present case are that an FIR
No. 32 dated 06.02.2013 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was registered against the petitioner's
son- Suraj Kumar at Police Station Division Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh
Sahib and he was convicted vide judgment dated 08.04.2015 passed by
Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib and sentenced to an imprisonment of 10
years along with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. On 10.08.2018, Suraj Kumar was
released on parole and he was required to surrender before the Jail Authority
on 22.09.2018, however, due to sudden demise of his father Madan Lal on
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141696
214 CWP-22664-2020 (O&M)
20.09.2018, he remained absent till 04.10.2018 to perform the last rites of
his late father. Copy of Death Certificate dated 27.09.2018 issued by Chief
Registrar, Births and Deaths, Punjab has been appended as Annexure P-2.
3. Because of Suraj Kumar's absence from 22.09.2018 till
04.10.2018, the bail bonds to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs that had been furnished
by the petitioner, in favour of her convicted son, stood forfeited and on
13.04.2020, respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner passed an order for
recovery of the said amount by directing respondent No.3 to attach the
property of the petitioner measuring 2 Biswas in lieu of the bail bonds that
had been furnished by her.
4. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached respondent No.2
and apprised of all the circumstances but no heed was paid to her request.
5. Hence, the present petition.
6. Short reply by way of affidavit of Parneet Shergill, District
Magistrate Fatehgarh Sahib on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 3 was filed on
14.11.2022. The relevant part of the reply is extracted hereunder:
" xxxx
2. That it is submitted that the convict Suraj kumar applied
for parole of six weeks before the Superintendent, New Jail,
Nabha, who forwarded the case for parole to the office of the
deponent. Consequently, this office vide letter dated
10.08.2018, granted six weeks parole to the convict Suraj
Kumar as the petitioner Smt. Meena Rani and her husband Late
Madan Lal furnished the bail bonds in favour of their son Suraj
Kumar and furnished property as surety, with a specific
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141696
214 CWP-22664-2020 (O&M)
undertaking that in case the convict will not surrender before
the Jail Authority on due date after availing the parole of six
weeks, then they are liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
3. That the Jail Authority vide letter No. 580 dated
20.02.2020 has written to this office to take action against the
sureties as per Punjab Good Conduct (temporary release) Act
1962 as the convict Suraj Kumar failed to report to Jail
Authorities within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the
surety bond of Rs. 2 lakh (as per letter No. 2482 dated 12-07-
2013 issued by Punjab Government Home affairs and Justice
Department) was forfeited as the convict Suraj Kumar violated
the terms of the parole and did not report to the jail authorities
on the fixed date 22-09-2020.
4. That during the hearing on 25.11.2020 before the then
District Magistrate, the petitioner informed that due to the
death of her husband Madan Lal on 20-09-2018, (father of
convict Suraj Kumar), the convict was not able to report to Jail
Authorities within time. This information was not shared by the
convict either with the District Magistrate or with Jail
authorities. The then District Magistrate passed necessary
orders and directed the respondent no. 3 to forfeit the amount
of Rs. 2 Lakh from the sureties.
5. That at the time of furnishing property as surety the
petitioner was well within the knowledge of the fact that in case
the convict fails to surrender before the Jail Authority within
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141696
214 CWP-22664-2020 (O&M)
time, then she is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2 Lakh.
6. That it is also pertinent to mention that the then District
Magistrate reduced the forfeited surety bond amount from 2
lakh to Rs 1.50 lakh on 09.12.2020. The petitioner has
concealed the above facts from the Hon'ble Court in their
petition.
7. That it has now come to the notice that the surety bonds
of convict Suraj Kumar was given by his parents Smt Meena
Rani and Sh. Madan Lal. As per the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 section 446, sub section 4 "where a surety to
a bond dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate shall be
discharged from all liability in respect of the bond". Therefore
in these circumstances the amount of surety bond has been
reduced from Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs.1 lakh as per sub-section 4 of
section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 amending
the earlier order dated 09.12.2020 issued by this office, vide
latest order dated 28.07.2021 passed by the Deponent. No
further relaxations are to be granted in view of the parole
violation.
xxxx"
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends
that the respondents have directed forfeiture of the surety furnished by the
petitioner on the failure of convict to surrender in time. He contends that the
issue as regards entitlement of the State Government to forfeit the surety has
already been dealt by this Court in its judgment dated 06.12.2022 passed in
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141696
214 CWP-22664-2020 (O&M)
CWP-25735-2019 titled as "Deepak versus State of Haryana and others".
8. He further submits that it was not a case of a voluntary or
willful absence of convict Suraj Kumar. The same happened because of
circumstances beyond the control and due to sudden demise of the father of
convict. The authorities failed to take the same into consideration and have
passed the order of forfeiture mechanically.
9. Counsel for the respondent-State however, reiterates his
argument as per the written statement and contends that undisputedly the
convict did not surrender on time and did not apply for extension of parole.
The order was passed in accordance with law. He, however, is not in a
position to controvert the judgment of this Court as regards the entitlement
of the State Government to direct forfeiture of the surety bond furnished by
surety for seeking parole of convict but contends that the same was in the
context of State of Haryana.
10. No other argument has been raised.
11. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone
through the documents appended along with the present petition.
12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner furnished her property as
surety, with a specific undertaking that in case the convict did not surrender
before the Jail Authority on due date after availing the parole of six weeks,
then they would be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. However, at
the same time the fact that the delay on the part of convict-Suraj Kumar in
surrendering before the Jail authority was on account of his father's death
and his obligation to perform the last rites remains undisputed. Copy of
Death Certificate dated 27.09.2018 issued by Chief Registrar, Births and
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141696
214 CWP-22664-2020 (O&M)
Deaths, Punjab also vindicates the stand of the petitioner in this regard. This
Court while expounding on the scope of Section 444(2) of Cr.P.C. in
Deepak (supra) observed as follows:
"24. Further, aid may be taken from Section 444(2) Cr.P.C.
which stipulates that in the event of voluntary surrender by the
person or even on appearance pursuant to the warrant, the
Magistrate shall direct the bond to be discharged. Thus, the
intent of surety and bond is not to effect recovery for each
breach, rather, it is to ensure that a convict/accused is brought
to the Court of law and subject himself to the rule of law. The
coercive measures adopted by the State in light of the
antecedent of the accused and the circumstances noticed above,
it would seem inequitable and travesty of justice in directing
recovery to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- each.
xxxx
26. Further, this Court in the matter of Sanjeev Kumar
Versus State of Punjab, 1998(3) RCR (Criminal) 471 had held
that order of warrants had been issued to a convict on account
of overstay ignoring the medical certificate produced by the
convict and was thus liable to be set aside."
13. Hence, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances
noticed above and also that the absence evidently is for reasons beyond
control and the convict has not indulged in any criminal activity, it would be
appropriate to set aside the order dated 28.07.2021 passed by the District
Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib directing forfeiture of the surety/bail bonds of
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141696
214 CWP-22664-2020 (O&M)
Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner and to reduce the penalty of forfeiture to a
sum of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner within two months of a
receipt of certified copy of this order.
14. The present petition is accordingly partly allowed.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
22.10.2024 JUDGE
Mangal Singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
