Lakhi Ram vs State of Haryana

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Appellant Lakhi Ram stood as a surety for accused Satish son of Dharam Singh, resident of Sonepat and

had furnished surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 and had undertaken that in case accused Satish fails to appear on any date, he would be liable

to pay the amount of surety bonds. Accused Satish son of Dharam Singh, resident of Sonepat was facing trial in the case arising out of FIR No.

146 of 1999, registered at Police Station Rai under Sections 395, 397 and 412 IPC. The above said accused failed to cause appearance before

the trial Court on 29.4.2002 when the case was fixed for hearing. A notice was served upon the Appellant. He examined Dr. P.C. Anand as

AW.1 who stated that Satish son of Dharam Singh had come to his Clinic on 27.4.2002 and he was advised rest from 27.4.2002 to 3.5.2002. He

proved the certificate issued to accused Satish in this regard as Ex.A1. It is argued by learned Counsel for the Appellant that accused Satish could

not appear on that day as he was suffering from abdominal pain and on the next date of hearing he had caused appearance, therefore, non

appearance of the accused on one day has been very harshly visited upon by the trial Court and vide order dated 25.1.2003, the surety bonds

have been ordered to be forfeited to the State and the Appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000 as penalty.

At the time of admission of the present appeal, this Court had stayed the recovery of amount of penalty and directed the Appellant to deposit

the amount to the extent of 50%. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that a sum of Rs. 15,000 has been deposited by the Appellant.

In the present case, the Appellant stood surety for accused Satish who failed to appear in the Court on one date. He relied upon medical

certificate issued by the doctor. It is not disputed that on the next date Satish had appeared and penalty of Rs. 30,000 had been imposed upon the

Appellant.

After considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that there is some scope of modification in

the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the amount of penalty is reduced from Rs. 30,000 to that of Rs. 15,000, which according to the

learned Counsel has already been deposited by the Appellant.

With the modification made in the amount of penalty, the present appeal is disposed of.