Partly allowed

Krishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 May 2023CRLMP/706/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified an order forfeiting Rs.1,00,000 surety from the petitioners who failed to produce the bonded prisoner, Suresh Dhaka. Since the prisoner died after absconding, the Court reduced the deposit to Rs.10,000 each and dropped ancillary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Surety forfeiture reduced to Rs.10,000 each; warrant of attachment withdrawn; proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC dropped.

Krishan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/015475]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 706/2023

¶4

Krishan Lal S/o Shri Jaswant Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 31 Gg, Tatasar, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

¶5

Ramkumar S/o Shri Chetram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 30 Kyd, Tehsil Khajuwala, District Bikaner (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, P.P.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶12

Order

¶13

12/05/2023

¶14

By way of the instant criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 03.09.2015 passed by the ADM, City, Sri Ganganagar in Misc. Case No.1/2015 directing forfeiture of amount of surety and issuing warrant of attachment for recovery of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from them as well as the order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.34/2015, whereby the learned appellate court has dismissed the appeal and maintained the aforesaid order.

¶15

The facts necessary for disposal of the instant criminal miscellaneous petition are that the petitioners furnished surety for a prisoner Suresh Dhaka at the stage when 15 days' emergent

[2023/RJJD/015475]

[CRLMP-706/2023]

(2 of 3)

parole was granted in his favour. The said convict Suresh Dhaka failed to comply with the order of parole and promise made in the bond and did not turn up after expiry of the parole period and made his escape good. Under these circumstances, the proceedings under Section 446 of the CrPC got initiated against the convict as well as the petitioners, who furnished surety for him. The petitioners appeared before the authority and filed a reply that the convict was their nephew and there was some emergency in the family, therefore, looking to the circumstances of the family, they furnished surety for him. It was also stated that they were sincerely making their efforts to trace him out.

¶20

Considering the reply to be not satisfactory and noticing that the convict did not turn up in the jail and there was breach of surety, the learned authority on 03.09.2015 passed the order of forfeiture of amount of surety, i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- each from both the petitioners and directed issuance of warrant of attachment of the property and then to recover the amount, which would be deposited in the treasury.

¶21

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners moved an appeal, but that has been dismissed vide order dated 13.07.2022. Both the orders are under assail before this court.

¶22

At the outset, it is apprised to this court that after passing of some time of abscondance, convict Suresh Dhaka had died and therefore, there was no occasion to bring back the convict and therefore, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, the

[2023/RJJD/015475]

[CRLMP-706/2023]

(3 of 3)

order of forfeiture should be quashed. It is also apprised to this court that as soon as they got information regarding abscondance of the accused Suresh Dhaka, they made sincere efforts to trace him out, but of no avail. He died on 05.11.2016. The postmortem report and other documents have also been furnished on record. Thus, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, a lenient view is required to be taken and the petitioners deserve some relaxation in the amount of forfeiture.

¶27

Accordingly, the order dated 03.09.2015 passed by the ADM, City, Sri Ganganagar and the order dated 13.07.2022 passed in appeal are hereby modified and it is directed that instead of Rs.1,00,000/-; each of the petitioners, namely, Krishan Lal and Ramkumar, shall deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- each (in total Rs.20,000/-) with the ADM, City, Sri Ganganagar within a period of 30 days from today. Upon deposition of the aforesaid amount, the forfeiture of surety amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from each of the petitioners, shall be deemed to be quashed and the warrant of attachment of the property shall be withdrawn. The proceedings under Section 82 and 83 of the CrPC shall also be dropped.

¶28

With these observations and directions, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed in part. The stay petition is disposed of.

¶29

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶30

4-Pramod/-

Krishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

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

Hygreev Singh Vs Harshvardhan Singh

Shail Ranawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Mrinal Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Shanti Lal Cheepan Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxman Vs Mamta

Saroj Suthar Vs Mahendra Singh @ Mahendra Kumar