SANJEEV K. Vs. RAJINDER DOGRA
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
ANOOP CHITKARA, J. -
(1.) This application is under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence. The sentence is only for one year and the matter involves appreciation of evidence and application of law. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter, the execution of the sentence of imprisonment is suspended. The order is subject to executing a bond for attendance as and when called upon to do so. In case of conviction, the petitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court to serve the imprisonment. Terms and conditions as set out in this order shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.
(2.) In Manish Lal Shrivastava v State of Himachal Pradesh, CrMPM No. 1734 of 2020, after analyzing judicial precedents, this Court observed that any Court while suspending the execution of sentence, it is permissible to give an alternative option to the accused to furnish personal bond, with an undertaking to attend the Court, on each date, unless exempted, and subject to handing over a fixed deposit(s) for a certain amount.
(3.) Before the next date, the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), and shall furnish two sureties of a similar amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/ Registrar (Judicial)/ Any Additional Registrar of this Court or any other official authorized by him. Before accepting the sureties, the attesting person must satisfy that in case the accused fails to appear in Court, then such sureties are capable to produce the accused before the Court, keeping in mind the Jurisprudence behind the sureties, which is to secure the presence of the accused.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.