Paras Ram vs State Of HP

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of instant appeal filed under Section 449 (2) read with Section 482 CrPC, challenge has been laid to order dated 19.2.2020, passed by learned Special Judge, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby fine to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- has been imposed upon the appellant herein, who stood surety for the accused, for his having failed to cause presence of the accused in Sessions Trial No. 41-S/7 of 2018/16, titled State v. Mohd. Arif @ Mushtaq Ahmad.

Pleadings as well as material available on record reveals that that the appellant herein stood surety for the accused namely Mohf. Arif @ Mushtarq Ahmad, but since the accused failed to come present in the court, despite notice/specific information, learned Special Judge, Shimla, issued notice under Section 446 Cr.PC against the appellant, being surety for the accused. Appellant pleaded before the court below that he has made every possible effort to find out the accused and even went to the residence of accused in Jammu twice, but could not find whereabouts of the accused and as such, was unable to cause presence of accused before court below. However, learned court below, while holding that the appellant being surety of the accused ought to have verified his credentials before agreeing to become his surety, imposed fine of Rs. 50,000/- upon the appellant and in the default of making the payment of fine amount, directed him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. In the aforesaid background, appellant has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order.

Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, there appears to be no dispute that the appellant herein stood surety for the accused Mohd. Arif @ Mushtaq Ahmad, who despite service failed to come present before learned court below. Since the appellant stood surety for the accused named hereinabove, he was under obligation to cause presence of the accused in the court below and since he failed to do so, he rightly came to be proceeded under Section 446 Cr. PC.

Though, in the case at hand, appellant herein, after initiation of proceedings under Section 446 Cr. PC tried to ascertain the whereabouts of the accused, but he failed to cause his presence in the Court. Impugned order, itself reveals that the appellant visited the State of Jammu and Kashmir twice to find out whereabouts of the accused, but failed to find out the same. Being surety, appellant is/was under obligation to cause presence of accused in the case pending against him in the competent court of law and in the event of his not doing so, he is liable to be imposed fine, as has been done in the instant case.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, though, this court sees no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned before this court, passed by learned Special Judge, but the amount of fine imposed upon appellant appears to be on higher side and as such, this court deems it fit to reduce fine amount from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs.10,000/-, especially when factum with regard to appellant visiting Jammu and Kashmir twice is duly recorded in the order impugned in the instant proceedings. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, aforesaid amount shall be deposited by the appellant with the learned Special Judge, Shimla within a period of one week from today, failing which the impugned order shall revive automatically.

Appeal stands disposed of in above-terms, so also, the pending application(s), if any.