Jaswant Singh and Another vs State of Uttaranchal

Dharam Veer, J.—This appeal, preferred by the appellants u/s 449(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC), is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.1.2004 passed by the 3rd F.T.C./Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (Rudrapur) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 10/2003, State v. Jaswant Singh and Anr., whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has directed the appellants to deposit the amount of sureties i.e. Rs. 80,000/- each in the court.

Facts, in brief, are that the appellants Jaswant Singh and Pritam Singh stood as sureties for bailing out the accused Darshan Singh. The accused Darshan Singh is under trial in Special Sessions Trial No. 9/2002, case crime No. 349/2001 of PS Nanakmata for the offence punishable u/s 15/18 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. When released from the jail on bail, the accused jumped the bail with the result that the sureties/appellants are now in jeopardy. When the accused failed to be present in the court and efforts by the trial court to get the presence of the accused also failed, then notices were issued to the appellants to produce the accused in court. Non-bailable warrant was also issued against the accused Darshan Singh at the request of the appellants. When the appellants/sureties failed to produce the accused in the court, the criminal court proceeded against them for failure to produce the accused in court and the Court ordered for forfeiture of the amount of surety bonds of Rs. 80,000/- each as mentioned in the surety bonds vide order dated 16.7.2003. Show cause notices were issued to the appellants asking them to pay the amount of surety bonds.

The appellants appeared before the trial court on 16.8.2003 and moved an application to set aside the aforesaid order dated 16.7.2003, but no reason was furnished by them for recalling the order dated 16.7.2003. Thereafter appellants prayed for further time to file the objections, which was allowed by the trial court and the case was posted for 12.9.2003. Thereafter the case was posted for 30.9.2003, 15.10.2003, 7.11.2003, 22.11.2003, 24.11.2003, 6.12.2003, 9.12.2003 & 2.1.2004 and on each and every date, the appellants moved application seeking adjournment and further time to produce the accused Darshan Singh before the court. But when they failed to produce the accused Darshan Singh before the Court and no reasonable explanation was furnished on their behalf, the Court directed the appellants to deposit the amount of surety bonds i.e. Rs. 80,000/- each in the court vide judgment and order dated 14.1.2004. It was further ordered that if appellants failed to deposit the aforesaid amount of surety bonds within 15 days, proceedings u/s 446(2) CrPC shall be initiated against them. Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 14.1.2004 the appellants have preferred this appeal.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the trial court record.

A perusal of the trial court record reveals that the matter was adjourned on a number of dates at the request of the appellants as discussed above. The Court also issued N.B.W. against the accused Darshan Singh at the request of the appellants. When the sureties/appellants failed to produce the accused before the Court then the court ordered for forfeiture of the amount of surety bonds and vide judgment and order dated 14.1.2004 directed the appellants to deposit the same in the court within 15 days. Even no reasonable explanation was furnished on behalf of the appellants for not producing the accused Darshan Singh before the court.

In the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the judgment and order dated 14.1.2004 of the trial court and it requires no interference by this Court. Learned Counsel for the appellants also fairly conceded that the impugned judgment and order dated 14.1.2004 of the trial court is correct and justified but he submitted that appellants'' financial condition is very poor. They are poor farmers who hardly meet their two ends meal and they are badly affected by the drought also. Learned Counsel for the appellants further requested that looking to their poor financial condition the amount of surety bonds may be remitted.

I find substance in the submission for the learned Counsel for the appellants. In my opinion, ends of justice would be met if the amount of rupees eighty thousand of each of the surety bonds of the appellants is remitted and only rupees forty thousand is recovered from each of the appellant instead of rupees eighty thousand. Prayer to this extent is allowed accordingly.

For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly allowed. The amount of each of the surety bonds of rupees eighty thousand is remitted to rupees forty thousand and two months'' time is allowed to each of the appellants to deposit the aforesaid money in the trial court. If the money is not deposited within the aforesaid prescribed time, the trial court may proceed to recover the said amount of Rs. 40,000/- from each of the appellants as per law. Judgment and order dated 14.1.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/3rd F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar (Rudrapur) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 10/2003, State v. Jaswant Singh and Anr. is modified to the extent indicated above.

Let the lower court record be sent back.