ANAND AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Anand And Another
State of Uttaranchal and another
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Appellants Anand and Ganga Das stood sureties to accused Chaman, who was facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Appellants executed bail bonds of Rs. 5000/- each before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on 18.08.1998. Appellants, therefore, owed a liability to procure the attendance of the accused Chaman, if he committed default in appearing before the trial court.
(2.) When the hearing of Sessions Trial No. 154 of 2000, captioned as State vs. Chaman took place, accused did not appear before the trial court. Notices were, therefore, issued to Chaman s sureties i.e. appellants herein, but they did not respond. Proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were, accordingly, initiated against them. Notices were again issued to the appellants by learned Additional Sessions Judge/3rd FTC, Haridwar. Sureties did not respond to the notices issued under Section 446 Cr.P.C. Recovery warrants were therefore, issued against them.
(3.) On 01.03.2006, sureties appeared before the Court below and prayed for cancellation of recovery warrant on the ground that the accused (Chaman) was produced by them before the Court concerned, no sooner they received notices for the same.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.