Criminal Appeal by a surety challenging forfeiture of bond and imprisonment for accused's default. Court upheld impugned orders regarding conviction but modified sentence to match period already undergone upon surrender of accused.
Impugned orders maintained regarding conviction but sentence modified to period already undergone by the appellant.
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.
1
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11523 Reserved on 31.01.2024 Delivered on 08.02.2024
A.F.R.
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1951 of 2008 Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
2
“(1) Where a bond under this Code is for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court and it is proved to the satisfaction of that Court, or of any Court
3
to which the case has subsequently been transferred, that the bond has been forfeited, or where, in respect of any other bond under this Code, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which the bond was taken, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, or of the Court of any Magistrate of the first class, that the bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid. Explanation.- A condition in a bond for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court shall be construed as including a condition for appearance, or as the case may be, for production of property, before any Court to which the case may subsequently be transferred.
(2) If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same as if such penalty were a fine imposed by it under this Code. 1 provided that where such penalty is not paid and cannot be recovered in the manner aforesaid, the person so bound as surety shall be liable, by order of the Court ordering the recovery of the penalty, to imprisonment in civil jail for a term which may extend to six months.
(3) The Court may, at its discretion, remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only.
(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.
(5) Where any person who has furnished security under section 106 or section 117 or section 360 is convicted of an offence the commission of which constitutes a breach of the conditions of his bond, or of a bond executed in lieu of his bond under section 448, a certified copy of the judgment of the Court by which he was convicted of such offence may be used as evidence in proceedings under this section against his surety or sureties, and,; if such certified copy is so used, the Court shall presume that such offence was committed by him unless the contrary is proved.”
4
Shyam and others, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, Faizabad and accused Radhey Shyam appeared and surrendered before the court concerned on 24.07.2008 and he is facing trial, therefore, the sentence of surety appellant Dharmendra Kumar Singh be reduced to the period already undergone by him.
So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, as the accused Radhey Shyam had appeared and surrendered before the court concerned and the appellant had already undergone sentence for
5
eleven days in compliance of the order dated 18.08.2008 and 17.03.2008 passed by the court below, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that the sentence is modified for the period which is already undergone by the appellant.
Order Date :- 08.02.2024
Arvind
(Shamim Ahmed,J.)
Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned orders forfeiting the surety bond and imposing imprisonment on the surety.
Whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant surety should be modified to the period already undergone.
Whether the conviction of the appellant surety is sustainable in light of the accused appearing and surrendering before the court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dharmendra Kumar Singh
State of U.P.
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
