- (1.) One Sukhwnder Singh was convicted in a case FIR No. 39 dated 10.08.2003 under Sections 302/364/34 IPC, registered at Police Station Talwandian, District Kapurthala, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, vide judgment dated 10.03.2005 and while undergoing life imprisonment. He was ordered to be released on parole of four weeks. He was ordered to be released on furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-.
(2.) One Sarban Singh (Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants) had furnished the surety bond on 3.3.2006 for the release of the aforesaid convict on parole of 04 weeks. He was released on 10.04.2006 and was to return to jail on 09.05.2006. Since the aforesaid Sukhwinder Singh did not surrender on expiry of the parole period, proceedings against the surety/appellant were initiated under Section 446 Cr.P.C. He submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory and vide impugned order dated 12.07.2006, was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- Thereafter, he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the Government Treasury by the District Magistrate.
(3.) Sarban Singh aggrieved against the order of the District Magistrate, Kapurthala, filed an appeal on 8.8.2006. During the pendency of the appeal, Sarban Singh died on 30.08.2007. His LRs (petitioners) were brought on record in the proceedings before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. Before the appellate authority, petitioners did not raise any objection that the order of the District Magistrate, directing to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- suffers from any illegality. The only contention raised was that they were not liable to pay the amount in question. The said appeal was dismissed by the aforesaid Court vide judgment dated 13.11.2009. While passing the aforesaid order, the Additional Sessions Judge, observed as under:- "For the sake of repetition, it is again clarified that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the facts of the present appeal and the facts upon the basis of which the District Magistrate has passed the order under appeal. Convict was undergoing life imprisonment. He was released on parole for four weeks, he he has not returned to the Jail. As such, it is a matter of grave concern. The only forceful contention being raised by the counsel for the appellant is that as per the authority cited above, the appellant is not liable to pay the amount in question. But the fact remains that the facts of the cited authority, are distinguishable from the facts of the present appeal. Perusal of the cited authority shows that in the surety bonds furnished int eh case of cited authority, there was no condition regarding the reporting back of the convict to the Jail after the expiry of 20 days temporary release. But perusal of the present surety bonds furnished by the present appellant Sarban Singh, shows that under condition No. 3, he has undertaken that during his release on parole , convict will not violate the terms of the parole and on the expiry of parole period, he will return to the jail in time. As such, in this case, the appellant is bound by the terms and conditions of the surety bonds. As such, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant is liable to deposit the surety amount in the Government Treasury. Although, counsel for the appellant has submitted that a lenient view may be taken, but the fact remains that in this case, convict Sukhwinder Singh was to serve life imprisonment in a murder case. During his Jail term, he was released on bail, but he has not returned to the Jail after the expiry of parole period. As such, no question to take a lenient view arises. As per above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed, being without any merit. Trial court record alongwith a copy of this judgement, be sent back forthwith and appeal file be consigned to the Record room. Pronounced in open Court. Dated 13.11.2009";