Nar Singh and anr. vs State (U.T.Chandigarh)

Ajit Singh Bains, J.

The petitioners stood surety for one Ravi Kant who was undergoing life sentence in Central Jail, Patiala oil transfer from District Jail. Chandigarh Ravi Kant was convicted by the Sessions Judge. Chandigarh, under section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was temporarily released for 20 days by Chandigarh Administration and a surety bond was executed by each of the petitioners in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ each. Ravi Kant convict did not report back to the jail authorities after the expiry of 20 days.

Notices were issued for the forfeiture of the surety bonds amount. After consideration of their replies the District Magistrate ordered the forfeiture of the surety bonds and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/ each on the petitioners as Ravi Kant convict did not report back to the jail authorities. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, upheld the orders of the District Magistrate. Hence this revision.

It was canvassed by Mr. Mangat, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that there was no condition in the surety bond regarding the reporting back of the convict to jail after the expiry of 20 days, I have perused the surety bonds. The conditions in the surety bonds arc as follows:

i. Shri Ravi Kant shall during the period of temporary release reside at Ronak Niwas, Karnal. He shall not without obtaining the prior permission of the District Magistrate Karnal visit any place not specified in the release warrant during the said period of temporary release

ii. Shri Ravi Kant mill keep the District Magistrate informed of any subsequent change of residence during the said period.

iii. Shri Ravi Kant shall during the period of his temporary release keep peace and maintain good behaviour,

iv. Shri Ravi Kant shall immediately furnish fresh security if security furnished by him today becomes insolvent or dies during the period of temporary release. In case of default of any of conditions by Shri Ravi Kant the security stands bound to the extent of Rs. 10,000/ and the same may he forfeited if the Govt. is of the opinion that the conditions have not been fulfilled by Shri Ravi Kant. Thus from the perusal of the aforesaid conditions, it is plain that there is no condition in the surety bonds regarding the reporting back of the convict to jail after the expiry of 20 days temporary release.

The notice issued by the District Magistrate are also regarding not reporting back of the convict and the penalty has also been imposed for the convict having not reported back to the jail authorities. In the order of the District Magistrate and in that of the Sessions Judge there is nothing else mentioned except that Ravi Kant convict did not report back and violated the conditions in the bonds as mentioned. Reporting back to the jail authorities is not the condition in the aforesaid bonds. Even the District Magistrate has also observed as follows :

"I do agree that the language of the surety bond should have been better worded and there should have been a specific mention of the reporting back of the prisoner to the jail authorities after the expiry of the temporary period."

Since there is no specific condition in the bonds regarding the reporting back of Ravi Kant convict, the impugned order imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/ each of the petitioners, could not be sustained. The petitioners stood surety on the conditions mentioned in the bonds. Nothing can be implied beyond the conditions which are mentioned in the bonds. It is settled law that where person executed a surety bond which penal consequences follow, the penalty can only be imposed if any of these conditions violated in the bond. Since none of the conditions in the bonds has been violated, the impugned order imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/ on each of the petitioners is act aside and the revision petition is allowed.