Partly allowed

Jaipal Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2021CRLA/2203/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the forfeiture of bail bonds, the Court remitted part of the penalty. While the full amount of Rs. 10,00,000 was initially forfeited, the Court allowed the appeal in part, directing deposit of Rs. 15,000 each as new surety for the accused.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to deposit Rs. 15,000/- each as surety for the accused within three months; full forfeiture order modified.

Jaipal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2203 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Jaipal Singh And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Madan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 24.2.2020 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge Court no. 1, Moradabad in S.T. No. 1142 of 2017 (State vs. Jaipal Singh and another) in Criminal Misc. Case No. 21 of 2020 (State vs. Jaipal Singh and another), arising out of Case Crime no. 836 of 2017, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., P.S. Majhola, district-Moradabad.

¶6

By the impugned order dated 24.02.2020 the learned Court below has forfeited the personal given by the appellants for the bail of accused Manoj son of Hardwari Lal, resident of village - Siraskherha, P.S. Mundhapande, District- Moradabad. By the impugned order the learned Court below has also imposed fine on the appellants with a sum of Rs. 100,000/- each, equal to the amount pledged in the bail bonds. 16.03.2020 was the date fixed by the Court below for further proceeding in the matter.

¶7

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellants have taken bail bonds/sureties of accused Manoj, R/o village-Siraskheda, P.S. Majhola, district-Moradabad and after getting bail and submitting bail bond/sureties the accused Manoj was continuously attending the court on the dates fixed by learned court below but due to illness he could not appear before the court below on few dates and when the accused was absconding, the notice was issued to the sureties, the present appellants.

¶8

He further submits that when the sureties got information that the accused had absconded, the sureties made a hectic search to caught hold the accused and they have already produced the accused to the concerned police station. He also submits that the appellants are absolutely innocent. They have followed the mandate of law and produced the accused before the trial court when they got the information that the accused Manoj had absconded and was not attending the court proceedings. Later on, the accused Manoj was released on bail. Therefore, no further action in the matter requires to be taken against the appellants under Section 446 Cr.P.C.

¶9

From perusal of the record, it also transpires that bonds of sureties have been forfeited and after issuing the notice, objection (6kh) was filed and that was also rejected because bail bonds of the appellants were forfeited and objection was dismissed according to law. Hence, this Court finds no ground to allow the appeal in toto.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that according to Section 446 Cr.P.C. the Court has power to remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only.

¶11

Section 446 (3) Cr.P.C. is quoted below which reads as under:

¶12

"446. Procedure when bond has been forfeited-

¶13

(3) The Court may, after recording its reasons for doing so, remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only."

¶14

From perusal of Section 446(3) Cr.P.C., it is very clear that the Court has power to remit any portion of the penalty.

¶15

On this issue, in the case of Ram Prasad Vs. State of U.P., reported in 1983 (2) Crimes 145, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that remission in surety amount can be granted at any stage.

¶16

On this issue, this Court in the case of Rajpal Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 Cr.L.J. 160-161 has held that where the sureties have produced the accused before the Court, a lenient view may be taken in the matter of recovery of surety amount.

¶17

On the same issue, this Court in the case of Jagganath VS. State of U.P., reported in 2009 Cr.L.J. NOC 190 has held that where the surety on the receipt of show cause notice produced the accused before the Court his application for discharge and the remission of penalty would not be rejected merely on the ground that the Court has already passed an order for forfeiture of bail amount.

¶18

It is admitted that accused has been produced before the court and he was sent to jail. In the opinion of this Court, lenient view may be taken against the appellants.

¶19

In view of the law laid down in the above cited matters involving the similar controversy as in the present case, the ends of justice will be done if the amount of sureties of Rs.15,000/-each is fixed for enlarging the applicants on bail and this Court is also of the considered opinion that the present appeal deserves to be allowed in part.

¶20

The appeal is partly allowed and the appellants are directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 15,000/- each within three months from today. In case of default, action may be taken against the appellants in accordance with law.

¶21

Copy of this order be sent to the C.J.M. concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶22

Compliance report be submitted within three months.

¶23

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official

¶24

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.7.2021/Faridul

¶26

Digitally signed by Justice Ajit Singh Date: 2021.08.24 10:04:58 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jaipal Singh and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaipal Singh and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shobi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Rai Vs State of U.P.

Ramnath Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalit Narayan Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another