- (1.) Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for quashing the order, dated 1.9.2010 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned District Magistrate, Sonepat, whereby the surety bonds furnished by the petitioners, Sukh Pal and Rajender, in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, were forfeited to the State and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each was ordered to be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of the land revenue.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners stood as sureties in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, for the convict, Mahabir, son of Mehar Singh, resident of village Jagsi, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, when he was ordered to be released on parole for four weeks by the jail authorities, vide order dated 6.2.2009. The said convict had to surrender before the jail authorities on 7.3.2009, but he failed to do so in time and, as such, FIR No. 91, dated 19.3.2009, under Sections 8 and 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988, was registered at Police Station, Baroda. In the meantime, learned District Magistrate, Sonepat, issued notice to the petitioners as to why the surety bonds submitted by them might not be forfeited to the State since the convict, Mahabir, failed to surrender before the jail authorities in time. Both the petitioners appeared before the learned District Magistrate for few dates, but later on failed to defend the proceedings initiated against them by the learned District Magistrate, Sonepat. Hence, the impugned order dated 1.9.2010 (Annexure P-3), was passed by forfeiting the surety bonds furnished by the petitioners and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each was ordered to be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of the land revenue.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the convict, Mahabir, though surrendered about 11 months after the due date, but the fact remains that he did surrender before the jail authorities and the case registered against him for his absence from the jail was decided against him and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. He further submitted that the petitioners were the simpleton covillagers of the convict, Mahabir, and as such they stood sureties for him. He further submitted that, in fact, the petitioners had traced out the convict, Mahabir, and persuaded him to surrender before the police and produced the said convict, Mahabir, before the police authorities. He further argued that keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the learned District Magistrate, Sonepat, had gone wrong in forfeiting the surety bonds and passing the order for recovery of whole of the amount mentioned therein as arrears of the land revenue from the petitioners.;