Decided on December 05,2013

Paltu Ram Appellant


- (1.) Appellant Paltu Ram stood surety to accused Anil, who was charge-sheeted in a case under Section 304-B IPC relating to PS Ranipur, District Haridwar, and he was undergoing trial in Sessions Trial No. 214 of 2003 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/3rd FTC, Haridwar. When accused Anil did not appear in the Court, notices were issued to his sureties, the appellant being one of them. Appellant did not respond to such notice and therefore, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him. After the institution of a case under Section 446 Cr.P.C., notice was again issued to him (surety). Subsequent thereto, on 08.11.2005, an application was moved on behalf of the sureties for taking the accused into judicial custody. According to such application: "The accused Anil has been brought into the Court with great difficulty by the pairokars of the sureties. He is likely to escape from justice and will not be able to face the trial. It is prayed that accused Anil who is present in the Court today, may be taken into judicial custody."
(2.) Thus it is clear from the record of the case that the accused was brought to the trial court by the surety (ies).
(3.) It is apparent from the records of the case that when the accused did not appear in the Court below, appellant too was issued notice. He ignored such a notice and did not respond to the notice of the Court. Misc. proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the appellant. Notice was again issued to him. Thereafter, the pairokars of the sureties brought the accused Anil Kumar in the Court. Appellant, therefore, owed a liability to produce the accused when notice was issued to him by the Court. Initially, he did not do so, but subsequently, he did the same, but only after misc. proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him. Had the appellant responded to the notice of the Court below and sought time to produce the accused or would have produced the accused, no proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. would have been initiated against him. But that was not the case. He did not respond to the initial notice, but responded to the subsequent notice which was issued after institution of misc. case under Section 446 Cr.P.C. and produced the accused before the trial court.;

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