Ram Singh vs State of Haryana

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—The Criminal Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay of 108 days in filing the appeal and the appeal are being disposed of by this common order. Criminal case titled " State Versus Suraj Bhan and others (total 16 accused)" arising out of FIR No. 1090, dated 01.12.2011, registered at Police Station, City, Hansi, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 427, 448 read with Section 149, IPC, and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, was pending adjudication before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar.

Accused Rakesh, Pawan and Mahesh did not appear on the date fixed before the learned trial court, therefore, their bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued for securing their presence. Even notices were issued for securing the presence of the sureties of the accused who did not appear.

Appellant Ram Singh had stood surety for accused Pawan. Despite service of notice u/s 446, Cr.P.C., he (Ram Singh appellant) did not appear before the learned trial court. Even no lawyer had appeared on behalf of the appellant Ram Singh, therefore, the learned trial court proceeded ex parte. Appellant Ram Singh had furnished surety bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the court on 06.06.2012 and undertook that accused Pawan son of Bhoop Singh would appear on each and every date of hearing. Pawan absented himself on 04.03.2013 and as such, his surety bond was forfeited. The learned trial court, finding no other remedy, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on appellant Ram Singh and further ordered that the penalty so imposed be recovered through the Collector, Hisar, from the moveable or immoveable property of appellant Ram Singh.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that accused Pawan Kumar had absented on 04.03.2013 and, thereafter, he was arrested in some other case on 24.06.2013, therefore, Pawan Kumar failed to appear before the learned trial court on each and every date of hearing and as such, there was no bad intention on the part of Pawan Kumar for not appearing before the learned trial court. The appellant as soon as came to know that Pawan Kumar was arrested in some other case, therefore, he thought that the police would produce him before the learned trial court in this case also, therefore, the appellant did not appear before the learned trial court. He further submits that the amount of penalty imposed by the learned trial court is on higher side. He also prayed for condonation of delay of 108 days in filing the present appeal on the ground that the appellant was not aware of passing of the impugned order.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the material available on record.

Accused Pawan Kumar for whom the appellant stood surety was facing trial along with 15 more persons for the offences punishable u/s 307, IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act etc. He failed to appear before the learned trial court on 04.03.2013 and, therefore, bail was cancelled and his bail bonds were ordered to be forfeited to the State. The notice u/s 446, Cr.P.C. was issued to the appellant but he failed to appear before the learned trial court, therefore, he was proceeded ex parte and a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant, Ram Singh.

I do not find any illegality, irregularity and impropriety in the impugned order. Even there is no plausible ground as to why the delay of 108 days in filing the present appeal be condoned, therefore, the Criminal Appeal No. 3066-SB of 2013 is dismissed. As a necessary corollary, the application for condonation of delay of 108 days in filing the appeal is also dismissed.