Allowed

Radhey Shyam Singh and Another. v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2023CRLA/1493/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant alleged unfair forfeiture of surety bonds and penalty without considering their explanation or issuing a non-bailable warrant. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order due to procedural lapses and the accused's subsequent acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26.10.2005 is set aside and the penalty imposed against appellant no.1 is set aside.

Radhey Shyam Singh and Another. Vs State of U.P. — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:49200

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1493 of 2005

¶4

Appellant :- Radhey Shyam Singh And Another. Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- S.P.Singh,Ajai Kumar Gupta,R.P.Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate

¶6

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the appellants is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present appeal has been filed U/s 449 CrPC challenging the judgement and order dated 26.10.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Misc. Case No. 06/2005.

¶10

Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant no.2, Shiv Bahadur Singh has expired and the case has been abated against the appellant no.2. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as abated on behalf of appellant no.2.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant executed surety of the accused. He received no notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the bail bonds executed by the appellant were cancelled forfeiting the amount of sureties to be deposited as land revenue.

¶12

However, it is also submitted that after receiving the notice, the appellant produced the person against whom the bail bonds were executed. But the trial court without issuing non-bailable warrant to the accused cancelled bail bonds executed by the appellant and the impugned judgement and order was passed without considering the reply submitted by the appellant.

¶13

It is further submitted that the accused, Sadhu Singh has been acquitted in S.T. No. 8/2003 in which the appellant executed sureties. Hence, it is prayed to set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 26.10.2005.

¶14

On perusal of the record, it transpires that the bail bonds were

¶15

forfeited vide order dated 14.3.2005 and the trial court proceeded to initiate the proceedings U/s 446 CrPC. Notices were issued to sureties who submitted their explanation 4-B and learned trial court found that the explanation 4-B provided by the appellant is not sufficient, hence directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 5,000/- as penalty.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of the Court towards the supplementary affidavit and submitted that in the reply 4-B, he had submitted that the deponent has produced the accused before the court on 15.4.2005 and thus, the appellant has not committed the breach of condition of surety deliberately. It is also clear from the record that the accusedSadhu Singh has been acquitted by the court concerned in S.T. No. 8/2003 and the judgement is also annexed with the record. The trial court fixed next date 2.2.2005 for appearance of the accused and on the date fixed, the appearance of accused was exempted by the trial court and next date was fixed for 14.3.2005. On 14.3.2005, the accused- Sadhu Singh was not present before the court and only on one day's absence of the accused, the trial court forfeited surety bonds of the appellants.

¶17

It appears that the trial court did not issue non-bailable warrant against the accused- Sadhu Singh. The presence of the accused was dispensed with on 02.02.2005 and bail bonds were forfeited on absence of one day only. The trial court also did not consider the explanation 4-B provided by the sureties before the court and did not give any cause why he did not believe on the explanation 4-B extended by the appellant. The case is old case of 2005 and the main case bearing S.T. No. 8/2003 has been decided and the accused has been acquitted by the trial court. Therefore, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to set aside the penalty imposed against the appellant no.1.

¶18

In the light of above discussions, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.10.2005 is set aside.

¶19

Order Date :- 26.7.2023 Shravan

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Radhey Shyam Singh and Another. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhey Shyam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Shukla Vs Smt.Pooja and Anr.

Jarrar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Revisionist Is Minor 'a' Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt.Israttulnisha @ Nuri and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Tara Chandra @ Tara Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shobhit Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Ors.