Partly allowed

Sukh Pal and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Nov 2012CRM-M/10831/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition challenged the forfeiture of surety bonds by the District Magistrate due to a convict's late surrender. The court held that while forfeiture was justified, the punishment was excessive. It reduced the penalty from the full bond amount to a lower sum to be deposited within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

The forfeiture of surety bonds was upheld, but the recovery amount was reduced from `1,00,000 to `25,000 per petitioner to be deposited within 15 days.

Sukh Pal and Anr. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M No. 10831 of 2012 (O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision: November 26, 2012

Sukh Pal and another

…Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶10

Present: Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Anupam Sharma, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents.

¶12

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

¶13

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for quashing the order, dated 1.9.2010 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned District Magistrate, Sonepat, whereby the surety bonds furnished by the petitioners, Sukh Pal and Rajender, in the sum of 1,00,000/- each, were forfeited to the State and a sum of 1,00,000/- each was ordered to be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of the land revenue.

¶14

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners stood as sureties in the sum of `1,00,000/- each, for the convict, Mahabir, son of Mehar Singh, resident of village Jagsi, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, when he was ordered to be released on parole for four weeks by the jail authorities, vide order dated 6.2.2009. The said convict had to surrender before the jail

¶15

CRM-M No. 10831 of 2012 (O&M)

¶16

¶17

authorities on 7.3.2009, but he failed to do so in time and, as such, FIR No. 91, dated 19.3.2009, under Sections 8 and 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, was registered at Police Station, Baroda. In the meantime, learned District Magistrate, Sonepat, issued notice to the petitioners as to why the surety bonds submitted by them might not be forfeited to the State since the convict, Mahabir, failed to surrender before the jail authorities in time. Both the petitioners appeared before the learned District Magistrate for few dates, but later on failed to defend the proceedings initiated against them by the learned District Magistrate, Sonepat. Hence, the impugned order dated 1.9.2010 (Annexure P-3), was passed by forfeiting the surety bonds furnished by the petitioners and a sum of `1,00,000/- each was ordered to be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of the land revenue.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the convict, Mahabir, though surrendered about 11 months after the due date, but the fact remains that he did surrender before the jail authorities and the case registered against him for his absence from the jail was decided against him and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. He further submitted that the petitioners were the simpleton covillagers of the convict, Mahabir, and as such they stood sureties for him. He further submitted that, in fact, the petitioners had traced out the convict, Mahabir, and persuaded him to surrender before the police and produced the said convict, Mahabir, before the police authorities. He further argued that keeping in view the

¶19

CRM-M No. 10831 of 2012 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

totality of the circumstances of the case, the learned District Magistrate, Sonepat, had gone wrong in forfeiting the surety bonds and passing the order for recovery of whole of the amount mentioned therein as arrears of the land revenue from the petitioners.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State has conceded the fact that the convict, Mahabir, is now behind bars. However, he opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

It is a conceded position that the convict, Mahabir, is now behind bars and undergoing the sentence awarded to him by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Though there is a controversy with regard to the arrest of the said convict by the police or he was made to surrender by the petitioners, but without going into the said controversy, the undisputed fact is that with regard to the absence of the convict, Mahabir, from jail, a case was registered again him and he was ultimately convicted and sentenced in the said case for simple imprisonment for one year.

¶25

The petitioners being rustic co-villagers had stood as sureties for the said convict, Mahabir. The learned District Magistrate, Sonepat, was right within his jurisdiction to forfeit the surety bonds furnished by the petitioners. However, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the impugned order forfeiting the whole amount of the surety bonds appears to be unjustified. Accordingly, the amount of penalty imposed upon

¶26

CRM-M No. 10831 of 2012 (O&M)

¶27

¶28

each of the petitioners is reduced to 25,000/- from 1,00,000/-. . The modified amount of penalty (total 50,000/- i.e. 25,000/each) shall be deposited by the petitioners within 15 days of passing of this order, otherwise the defaulting petitioner(s) would undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

¶29

The present criminal miscellaneous petition is partly

¶30

allowed in the above terms.

¶31

November 26, 2012 Pkapoor

¶32

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

Sukh Pal and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukh Pal and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Lakhbir Singh Vs Swaran Singh

Goldy Arora @ Vivek Arora & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Rajiv Kawatra Vs State of Haryana

Harpreet Singh Harry Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jatin Chabra and Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Baldev Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.