MAHIPAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Appellant Mahipal stood surety to accused Bindeshwar, who was required to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 504, 506 and 376 IPC, in Sessions Trial No. 301 of 1999, in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/ 4th FTC, Haridwar. Accused absconded and did not appear before the trial court. Notices were issued to his sureties, including the appellant, being one of them. Appellant did no respond to such notice. Thereafter, learned Additional Sessions Judge instituted the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. against the appellant. Recovery warrant for recovery of surety amount was issued. On 13.05.2003, appellant prayed for a month's time to produce the accused. Such request of the appellant was allowed. Appellant was directed to produce the accused on or before 03.06.2003. Execution of the recovery was suspended in the meanwhile.
(2.) On 03.06.2003, appellant requested the Court below to give him dasti warrant, which request was also allowed, but, accused could not be produced before the trial court. Accused also did not surrender before the Court concerned. He was at large. On 06.05.2005 appellant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- within 15 days, failing which, the said sum shall be recovered from him (as arrears of land revenue), but the appellant did not deposit the surety-amount.
(3.) Instead, appellant approached this Court. On 28.09.2006, while admitting the criminal appeal, following order was passed.
"If the appellant deposits Rs. 12,500/- out of the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, within a period of fifteen days from today, before the court concerned, the recovery of the remaining amount, as directed to be made by IV Fast Track Court /Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, vide its order dated 06.10.2005, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 35 of 2003, shall remain stayed.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.