- (1.) The conspectus of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant appeal and emanating from the record, is that, originally, a criminal case was registered against the main accused and son of appellant Harbhajan Singh, by means of FIR No.43 dated 5.9.2009, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 489-A to D read with Section 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Dhilwan, District Kapurthala.
(2.) Sequelly, the appellant stood surety and furnished the surety bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- for the release of his own son Paramjit Singh (accused). On 12.3.2012, the main accused did not appear in the Court, so, his bail and surety bonds were forfeited. The proceedings under section 446 Cr.PC were initiated against the appellant. Although he has projected a reasonable explanation of illness of absence of his own son Paramjit Singh, but the trial Judge has forfeited the bonds and a penalty of entire amount of Rs. 20,000/- was imposed on the appellant as well as on his son, vide a very brief impugned order dated 20.4.2012, which, in substance, is as under:- "Heard. Accused Paramjit Singh absented from the court on 12.03.2012 and today he has been produced by the Jail Authorities and he has been taken into custody in the main trial. So, keeping in view of the submissions made by accused and his surety, a penalty of Rs.20,000/- each is imposed upon accused Paramjit Singh and his surety Harbhajan Singh. Accused and surety requested for an adjournment for making the payment. Adjourned to 10.05.2012 with the main trial for payment."
(3.) The appellant did not feel satisfied and preferred the present appeal to challenge the indicated impugned order.;