Partly allowed

Gurdev Singh & Ors. v. District Magistrate and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Feb 2017CRA-S/3426/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants, who stood surety for a prisoner released on parole, challenged the order demanding full penalty for his failure to surrender. The HIGH COURT reduced the penalty from Rs. 1 lac each to Rs. 25,000 each, noting the prisoner was apprehended shortly after the deadline.

What did the court decide?

Penalty reduced from Rs. 1 lac each to Rs. 25,000 each.

Gurdev Singh & Ors. Vs District Magistrate and Anr. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRA-S-3426-SB-2014

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Criminal Appeal No.S-3426-SB of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 17, 2017

¶5

Gurdev Singh and others

¶6

..........APPELLANT(s).

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

District Magistrate and another

¶9

........RESPONDENT(s).

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶11

Present: Ms. Meenakshi Poswal, Advocate for the appellant (s).

¶12

Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG Haryana.

¶13

¶14

SURINDER GUPTA, J.

¶15

The appellants stood surety for prisoner Jai Ram, who was released on parole under the order of Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala on 26.07.2011 with direction to surrender before Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Kurukshetra on 24.09.2011. He, however, did not surrender and was arrested on 03.10.2011. The proceedings were initiated against the petitioners, who had furnished surety bonds in the sum of 1 lac each, for ensuring surrender of Jai Ram (the prisoner) in the jail on 24.09.2011. They were directed to pay the surety amount of 1 lac each vide order dated 01.07.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellants confines the relief claimed in this appeal to the extent that some lenient view regarding the quantum of Sachin Mehta 2017.02.21 10:06 penalty imposed on the petitioners be taken keeping in view the fact that Jai I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

¶17

CRA-S-3426-SB-2014

¶18

-2-

¶19

Ram was arrested within few days of the date given to him for surrendering.

¶20

Learned Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra has ordered recovery of surety amount from the petitioners keeping in view the fact that none had appeared before him on behalf of appellants despite grant of opportunity. However, keeping in view the fact that Jai Ram was apprehended within 10 days of the date given to him for surrendering and no notice was given to the appellants with direction to produce prisoner Jai Ram, I take a lenient view and reduce the amount of penalty imposed upon the appellants from 1 lac each to 25,000/- each.

¶21

The appeal is partly accepted accordingly.

¶22

( SURINDER GUPTA ) February 17, 2017 JUDGE Sachin M. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶23

Sachin Mehta 2017.02.21 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

Gurdev Singh & Ors. v. District Magistrate and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdev Singh & Ors. v. District Magistrate and Anr.

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

Kulwinder & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Rakesh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Jaggi Singh @ Sukhraj Singh Vs State of Haryana

Amrik Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ajay Vs State of Haryana

Madan Singh Vs State of Haryana