Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046680
236 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-3932-SB-2018
Date of decision: 03.04.2025
LAKHWINDER SINGH
...APPELLANT
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Rajdeep Singh Chugh, Advocate for the appellant.
(through video conferencing)
Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order
dated 15.01.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in
case titled as ‘State vs. Amandeep Singh‘,, whereby surety amount of
Rs.50,000/- has been imposed as penalty upon the appellant on failure to
produce accused Amandeep
Amandeep Singh, in a case stemming from FIR No.67 dated
13.08.2012 registered under Sections 307/148/149/201 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of
Arms Act at Police Station
Stati Dugri, Ludhiana.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant had furnished
surety bonds for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
Rs.50,000/ for bail of accused
accused-Amandeep Singh,
however, accused-Amandeep
accused Amandeep Singh absented from the Court on 02.12.2017
and his bail bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State. Thereafter, notice
notices
to accused as well as his surety i.e. appellant were issued and learned trial
Court granted 09 days time to produce the accused. When the appellant could
not produce the accused within the stipulated period, the learned trial Court
imposed Rs.50,000/-
Rs.50,000/ as penalty upon the appellant under Section 446 of
1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 26-04-2025 00:37:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046680
CRA-S-3932-SB
SB-2018 2
Cr.P.C. and recovery proceedings were initiated against him. Hence, the
appeal.
3. Learned counsel
couns for the appellant inter alia contends that the
surety bond furnished by the appellant has been wrongly forfeited by the
learned trial Court, making him liable to pay Rs.50,000/
Rs.50,000/-. He further contends
that the learned trial Court granted very short time tto the appellant to produce
the accused-Amandeep
Amandeep Singh. He submits that if the trial Court would have
granted some more time to the appellant for producing the accused, then there
would be no need to impose penalty upon the appellant or to forfeit the bonds.
He further submits that on 17.02.2018, the appellant had produced the accused
before the learned trial Court and thereafter on 31.03.2018, the accused was
again released on bail on furnishing
furnishing the bail bonds in a sum of R
Rs.50,000/-. As
such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the
appellant on the ground that the appellant stood surety of accused
accused-Amandeep
Singh, as such, it is the duty of the appellant to prod
produce the accused in the
Court. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order and
imposed the penalty of Rs.50,000/-
Rs.50,000/ upon the appellant and he does not deserve
any leniency.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after per
perusing
the record of the case, it transpires that the accused in the FIR ((supra) has
already been arrested and has been granted the concession of regular bail.
Further, the appellant stood surety of the accused and has produced him before
the learned trial Court on 17.02.2018.
2 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 26-04-2025 00:37:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:046680
CRA-S-3932-SB
SB-2018 3
5. A similar issue was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
‘Mohammed Kunju v. State of Karnataka‘ 1999 (4) RCR (Criminal) 726 and
this Court in ‘Bhagat Singh v. State of Haryana‘ 2018 (2) RCR (Criminal)
337, ‘Mohinder Singh v. The
The State of Punjab’ 2008 (22) RCR (Criminal)
704, ‘Angrej Singh v. State of Punjab’ 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 580 and
‘Gopal Kaur v. State of Punjab’ 2011 (6) RCR (Criminal) 1394
1394, wherein, the
penalty imposed under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. was reduced to 1/4th of the
amount of surety bonds by holding that the said bonds were on the higher side.
6. The appellant had no knowledge that the convict would not
surrender on time and there are no allegation
allegations of collusion between the
appellant and the accused with regard to the accused not surrendering before
the trial Court.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served in allowing
the present appeal. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 15.01.2018 passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana is hereby quashed.
8. The penalty imposed upon the appellant is reduced to Rs.12,500/-
from Rs.50,000/
50,000/- If the said amount of Rs.12,5500/- has not been deposited or
recovered from the appellant so far, he is directed to deposit the same with the
trial Court, within a period of 03 months from today, failing which, this appeal
would automatically stand dismissed without any further orders
orders.
9. Disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
(HARPREET
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
BRAR)
April 03, 2025 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 26-04-2025 00:37:32 :::
[ad_1]
Source link