GURDAYAL SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
LAWS(UTN)-2013-9-45
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 03,2013

Gurdayal Singh And Another Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Appellants Gurdayal Singh and Harnam Singh stood sureties for the accused Charan Singh in Special Trial No. 08 of 2001 before Special Judge (Gangsters Act), Nainital. Accused Charan Singh was facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 2/3 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986. Accused Charan Singh absented himself on the dates of hearing. Learned Special Judge, therefore, issued notices to his sureties (appellants), requiring them to produce the accused Charan Singh. Notices under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. were served upon the appellants personally. Inspite of service of notices, neither they appeared before the court below, nor did they furnish any explanation for non-appearance of the accused. The Special Judge, therefore, had no option but to request the Collector concerned to realize Rs. 30,000/- each from the appellants as arrears of land revenue. There was no illegality in the impugned order dated 18.11.2003.
(2.) Whenever any person stands surety for an accused, he conveys to the Court that he will be responsible for producing the accused, if he committed default in appearance before the Court, failing which he will be liable to pay the sum of bail amount in favour of the State. The impugned order was passed perfectly in accordance with law. No interference is called for in the same.
(3.) Subsequently on 31.05.2004, an application was moved by the appellants that they have produced accused Charan Singh and, therefore, order directing recovery of Rs. 30,000/- each from them be recalled. Learned Special Judge, after hearing the appellants, refused to interfere with the order passed by him on an earlier occasion. It, therefore, transpires that the accused was subsequently brought to the court concerned to face the trial. Learned counsel for the appellants prayed that a portion of the penalty imposed upon the appellants be remitted under Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed upon the rulings of Jameela Khader and others vs State of Kerala, 2004 CrLJ 3389 and Shyam Sunder Sharma vs State, 2006 CrLJ 749.;


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