ABBAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2013-8-44
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 31,2013

Abbal Singh Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. - (1.) APPELLANTS Abbal Singh and Bihari Prasad stood sureties for the accused Hariwas Singh, who, on the date of passing of impugned order dated 03.06.2003, was detained in District Jail, Lucknow. When the accused Hariwas Singh did not appear before the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, notices were issued to his sureties, who appeared in person before the court concerned saying that the accused was detained in District Jail, Lucknow.
(2.) LEARNED Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, forfeited the bail bonds of the accused and directed for realization of surety amount from the appellants on the pretext that the case against the accused was pending since long. That was hardly any reason for the court below to have forfeited the bail bonds of the accused and directing for realization of surety amount from the appellants. The only course, which was left to the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, was to sent a requisition under Section 267(1) of Cr.P.C., requiring the Officer -In -Charge of Lucknow Jail to produce the accused before him for answering the charge levelled against him. Learned Sessions Judge, in fact, did the same, but on a subsequent date, as is evident from the question -answer received from the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Lucknow. The question -answer is in the following form: Question Answer 1. Whether accused Hariwas Singh was detained in judicial custody in Lucknow jail in case crime No. 68 of 2002 under Sections 392, 411 IPC, police station Alambagh? Yes 2. Whether accused (Hariwas Singh) was summoned by the Court for 12.06.2003? Yes Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the accused Hariwas Singh subsequently appeared before the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi and the case was decided resulting in the conviction of the accused.
(3.) THIS Court is not concerned as to whether the accused was acquitted or convicted. Suffice will it be to say for the purpose of disposal of the present criminal appeal that the impugned order ought not have been passed by the Sessions Court, once it was informed by the appellants to the court concerned that the accused, for whom they stood sureties, was detained in Lucknow jail. Learned Sessions Judge should have taken recourse to Section 267(1) of Cr.P.C., instead of forfeiting the bail bonds of the accused. The impugned order, therefore, cannot sustain in the eyes of law.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.