The Hon'ble Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by sureties against the direction to deposit a bond amount following the absconding of the accused for whom they stood sureties in a sessions trial where the record is missing.
The appeal was dismissed; directions to deposit the bond amount stand maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 971 of 1985
Appellant :- Kanchan Singh & another Respondent :- State Counsel for Appellant :- R.S. Yadav,Abida Syed (A.C) Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard Dr. Abida Syed, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.
This appeal u/s 449 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by suretiesappellants Kanchan Singh and Kulaf Singh against order dated 13.3.1985 passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Etah, in S.T. No. 191 of 1984, State Vs. Bhoora and others, whereby the sureties of accused Judge i.e. the present appellants were directed to produce the accused for whom they had stood sureties but they appeared in the Court and apprised about absconding of accused Judge and thereafter the order of making deposit of bond amount of Rs. 5000/- against each was made.
Learned Amicus Curiae, learned counsel for the appellants, argued that father of accused Judge had given an affidavit before the trial court that the accused Judge was missing after the riot occurred at above place and since then whereabouts of accused Judge was not traceable, whereas the trial against coaccused Bhura stood of acquittal.
Update status from the trial court was obtained by this Court. Report of District & Sessions Judge, Etah, reveals that the record of above S.T. No. 191 of 1984 is missing and enquiry for the same has been constituted.
This proceeding is not related with trial of above sessions case. Rather it is a proceeding against the order passed under the provisions of section 446 Cr.P.C.
Admittedly, the appellants were sureties of accused Judge. The accused Judge became untraceable, hence could not be produced before the court. These appellants -sureties appeared before the Court in compliance of notice issued to them and they apprised the Court that accused Judge, for whom they had stood as sureties, has become untraceable. Under above circumstances the Trial Court directed to deposit/ realisation of bond amount from the sureties.
There was no evidence of appellants before the Trial Court nor any prayer for remittance of surety amount. Hence under above
facts and circumstances the Trial Court directed for realization/ deposit of surety amount in the tune of Rs. 5000/- per appellant as the surety amount in the bond. Hence, there appears no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. This appeal merits its dismissal.
Dismissed accordingly.
Dr. Abida Sayed, was appointed as Amicus Curiae and was requested for assisting the Court and she has assisted the Court very well in this appeal, hence she shall be paid Rs. Five Thousand as fee by the State within fifteen days from today.
Order Date :- 30.1.2019 Pcl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order directing sureties to deposit bond amount despite lack of evidence against them merits modification.
Whether the failure of the accused to appear necessitated the realization of the surety bond under the facts of this case.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kanchan Singh and Kulaf Singh
State
Ram Krishna Gautam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
