ALI HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2013-8-141
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 22,2013

ALI HUSSAIN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This criminal appeal was filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 18.11.2003, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / III F.T.C., Nainital, in S.S.T. No. 10 of 2000, captioned as State vs Ali Hussain, whereby learned Addl. Sessions Judge forfeited the bail bonds of the accused and issued recovery warrant against the appellant.
(2.) S.S.T. No. 10 of 2000, captioned as State vs Ali Hussain, under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act 1986, was pending before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital. Appellant Ali Hussain stood one of the sureties for the accused Abrar Hussain, who did not appear before the court below. Notice was given to the appellant-surety, but he too did not appear before the court below, despite service of notice upon him. No explanation was offered on his behalf. In the absence of the accused and his surety, the court below directed Rs. 10,000/- to be realized from the appellant as penalty under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. The Collector was requested to get the amount of bail bond realized from the appellant-surety as arrears of land revenue. The same order is under challenge before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that accused Abrar Hussain died subsequently after passing of the impugned order, hence, the order of recovery passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge was illegal. This Court is unable to subscribe to the argument of learned counsel for the appellant, in as much as the impugned order was passed on 18.11.2003, and the accused died on 29.12.2003. The appellant-surety, by filing bail bond, undertook to present the accused before the court below, which he failed. Appellant did not even bother to reply to the notice issued by the court concerned.
(3.) Since a proper notice under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. was issued to the appellant-surety to which neither did he appear before the court below nor offered any explanation, therefore, learned Addl. District Judge committed no mistake in making a request to the Collector, Nainital to realize the amount of bail bond from the surety as arrears of land revenue. There is, therefore, no illegality in the impugned order.;


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