Allowed

Rajendra and Anr. v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2018CRLA/633/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by sureties against an order requiring deposit of forfeited bond. The court found the order unsustainable as the accused was produced shortly after the notice, indicating the sureties fulfilled their obligations faithfully.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order and judgment dated 25.01.2011 ordering the appellants to deposit forfeited bonds of Rs. 30,000 each is set aside.

Rajendra and Anr. Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 633 of 2011

¶3

Appellant :- Rajendra And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- R.K. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

¶5

This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order and judgement dated 25.01.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Meerut in Criminal Case No.10 of 2009 (State vs. Subey) u/s 446 of Cr.P.C., P.S.-Sadar Meerut, DistrictMeerut arising out of Sessions Trial No.249 of 2002 (State vs. Kishan) u/s 307 of I.P.C. and Section 25 of Arms Act, P.S.Sadar Bazar, District-Meerut whereby the appellants Rajendra and Subey, who stood sureties to the accused Kishan, have been ordered to deposit Rs.30,000/ each for the reason that the accused at some point of time had absconded and had not appeared in the Court.

¶6

Heard Shri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶7

The hub of the submission which has been emphasized by the appellants' counsel is that the notice by the trial court was served upon the appellants (sureties) on 20.05.2007 and immediately after having come to know the factum of the absconding of the accused, the appellants made a fullfledged attempt to procure his attendance and bring him before the court to submit to its jurisdiction. Attention of the Court was drawn to the order-sheet dated 13.08.2007, which finds its place on Page34 of the appeal, and which shows that on date 13.08.2007 the accused was presented in the court and was taken into custody. Further submission is that subsequently the accused of the case

¶8

was also convicted u/s 307 I.P.C. to undergo sentence of four months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- along with default clause. The accused was also convicted to undergo sentence of four months simple imprisonment u/s 25 of Arms Act. This conviction was recorded on 13.11.2007. Submission is that the record would disclose that it is not a case where it may be said that the sureties did not do what they were required to do or that there was any deliberate attempt on their part not to faithfully discharge their obligation to bring the accused to submit to court's jurisdiction. It is not always possible to procure the attendance of the accused forthwith and according to the counsel it takes some time before the sureties may be expected to succeed in bringing the accused before the court. The argument is that the main purpose for which the appellants stood sureties was to ensure that the accused shall face the process of law and shall not abscond but when it was found that the accused has committed default, the appellants performed their duty faithfully. Submission is that the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case is such that the finding of the Court does not appear to be sustainable and the ends of justice would require that the impugned order and judgement be set aside.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the factum that the accused was made available to the court without loosing much time and it has been fairly admitted by learned A.G.A. that it is not a case in which it may be said that the sureties have failed to perform their duty and obligation which they carried on their shoulders after having stood the sureties. The factum of the conviction of the accused has also been admitted. The order and judgement of conviction of the accused also finds its place on record. The time gap between the service of the notice to the sureties and the surrender of the accused in the court is not very large and

¶10

the totality of facts and circumstances of the case appear to be such that the finding recorded by the court below does not appear to be sustainable and is at any rate disproportionately harsh. The appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶11

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order and judgement dated 25.01.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Meerut stands set aside.

¶12

Let the record of the appeal be consigned, and the office to do the needful.

¶13

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court concerned forthwith.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.7.2018 M. Kumar

Rajendra and Anr. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra and Anr. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupendra Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Gujar Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Vs State of U.P.

Ramgiri Vs State of U.P.

Mange Ram Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Neeraj Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another