Om Parkash Manchanda vs State of Haryana

A.S. Nehra, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.9.1986 passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, by which a sum of Rs 1000/ has been ordered to be forfeited under Section 446 of the of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in case FIR No.99 of 1977 under Sections 379, 419, 411 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station City Thanesar Satrangi Lal was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on various terms under different charges and was also fined a sum of Rs. 25,000/ in all, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide his order dated 21.12.1985 allowed bail to Satrangi Lal, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/ as part of the total fine of Rs.25,000/, with the condition that the suspension of sentence shall remain in force till 2.4.1986 on which date the accusedapplicant will appear in the court and will pay the unpaid amount of Rs.15,000/

On 1.4.1986 Satrangi Lal appeared in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, with his counsel and moved an application for extension of time for depositing Rs.15,000/ as part of the fine. Considering his request, he was allowed to pay the unpaid amount of Rs. 15,000/ on or before 17.4.1986. On 17.4.1986, neither the unpaid amount of the fine was paid nor the accused appeared in court nor any intimation was sent by him about his whereabouts. Accordingly, vide order dated 17.4.1986. bail bonds furnished by the appellant were forfeited to the state and order for issuance of nonbailable warrants of arrest against Satrangi Lal were passed and the case was fixed for April 26, 1986.

On 26.4.1986, accused was not produced as nonbailable warrants of arrest were not issued by the Ahlmad of the court. On the next date i.e. 12.5.1986 the accused was produced in custody in execution of nonbailable warrants of arrest and he was sent to judicial custody. On that date Satrangi Lal filed an application for bail in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, stating therein that at the time of filing the appeal, he was released on bail subject to the condition that he would deposit Rs.15,000/ and would deposit the remaining on or before 2.4.1986. It was further mentioned in the application that on 2.4.1986 he was not in a position to arrange the remaining amount which was directed to be deposited in the Court, as his son had disappeared along with the title deed of the property and the court extended the time for depositing the aforesaid amount of Rs.15,000/ upto 17.4.1986. It was further mentioned that due to family bickering, the accusedapplicant could not deposit the amount of Rs.15,000/ till that day and he failed to deposit the said amount of Rs.15,000/ by 17.4.86 and therefore his bail was cancelled and non bailable warrants were issued against him. He further stated that he had already entered into an agreement to sell his property with some person and he is likely to get huge amount as earnest money. He prayed that the time for depositing the remaining amount may be ordered to be extended upto 20.5.1986 that he be ordered to be released on bail or in the alternative he may be ordered to be sent to Delhi in the police custody, so that he may get the amount which is to be deposited in the court. This application was declined by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, on 13.5.1986 and it was ordered that as soon as the accusedapplicant pays the fine of Rs.15,000/ he shall be released on bail. Satrangi Lal has not stated in para No.6 of his application which was filed by him on 12.5.1986 that he was absent from the court.

The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the penalty imposed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is harsh and excessive.

After hearing counsel for the parties, I find no merit in this contention that the amount of Rs. 1000/ forfeited to the State of Haryana out of the bail bond of Rs. 5000/ furnished by Om Parkash Manchanda (surety of the accused), under Section 446, Cr.P.C. for absence of the accused on the date fixed, is excessive and harsh, and the appeal is hereby dismissed.