Roshan Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehtab S. Gill, J.

The matter herein concerns the order dated November 17, 1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Bhatinda whereby he, after issuing notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C. forfeited the surety bonds of the appellant to the State and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/ on him on the ground that, as undertaken by him in his surety bond, he failed to produce Gurinder Singh accused in the Court in case FIR No. 209 dated July 1, 1985 under Sections 302/34/120B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Mansa on October 8, 1987 and also on subsequent date.

The positive stand of the appellant was that Gurinder Singh appellant was arrested by the Police of C.I.A. Staff, Mansa on October, 1987 and as such he was unable to produce him in the Court. This assertion of the appellant is supported by the application moved on behalf of the Gurinder Singh accused in the main case which is duly signed by Shri Karminder Singh Sodhi, Advocate who was his counsel, for exemption of personal appearance of Gurinder Singh accused on account of his arrest by the police of C.I.A. Staff, Mansa from the court compounds of Bhathinda on October 8, 1987.

The learned lower Court laid much stress on the fact that Sub Inspector of C.I.A. Staff, Mansa in his report mentioned that Gurinder Singh accused was not arrested. We are not oblivious of the fact that sometimes the police detains persons without there being any entry in any record. Daily Hebeas Corpus petitions are filed in this Court for the release of detenus and this Court appoints Warrant Officers for their release if they are found in illegal custody. Even otherwise the learned lower Court was required to call for the record of the C.I.A. Staff Mansa and examine it particularly when the positive stand of the accused was that he was illegally taken to the C.I.A. Staff Mansa and detained there. It is not understandable that when Gurinder Singh accused had come to the Court for the specific purpose of appearing in the case against him, as noticed earlier, then why he would leave the Court premises without attending the Court. In the application for exemption, it is alleged that Gurinder Singh was taken away by the police of C.I.A. Staff, Mansa from the Court compounds of Bhatinda. If the intention of Gurinder Singh were to abscond then he would not make the application bringing true facts to the notice of the Court. The version of the appellant and that of Gurinder Singh accused appears to be more plausible.

Furthermore, the learned lower Court passed the impugned order in undue haste. As is apparent from the order it gave only one opportunity to the appellant to produce Gurinder Singh accused and imposed penalty of entire amount of surety bond. The learned lower Court should have afforded reasonable opportunity to the appellant to cause the appearance of Gurinder Singh accused in the Court. It seems that due to arrest of Gurinder Singh by the police C.I.A. Staff, Mansa, it was beyond the control of the appellant to produce him in the Court on October 8, 1987 or on the subsequent date.

For the reasons mentioned above, I find that the impugned order suffers from material illegalities and cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

In the result, this appeal succeeds and is accepted. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The amount of penalty, if recovered from the appellant, be refunded to him.