Jaswant And ANR v. State Of Haryana And Others

CRM-M No. 34572 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M No. 34572 of 2020 Date of Decision: 13.12.2024 Jaswant and another ...PeƟƟoners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Lajpat Sharma, Advocate for the peƟƟoners.

Mr. Aashish Bishnoi, D.A.G., Haryana.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1.

Aggrieved by order to recover a sum of Rs.2 lacs from the peƟƟoners who had stood sureƟes for the convict Sandeep Singh in a murder case who did not surrender as per the terms of the release bond, the sureƟes have come up before this Court under SecƟon 482 CrPC.

2.

The convict namely Sandip son of Ramphal was ordered to be released by the District Magistrate, Jind on acceptance of surety of Rs.2 lacs from the peƟƟoners and consequently, he was released on furlough for three weeks vide order dated 31.01.2017. The surety bonds are aƩached as Annexures P-3 and P-4 supported by their affidavit Annexure P-5. Vide Annexure P-6 dated 24.02.2017, it was inƟmated to police officials that the convict did not surrender back to the jail premises on 23.02.2017. Based on this, vide Annexure P-7 passed by District Magistrate, sureƟes of Rs.2 lacs were forfeited. The convict was tried under SecƟon 9 of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 and was convicted vide judgment dated 14.03.2019 and sentenced to imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/-.

However, the sureƟes were aggrieved by the forfeiture of the surety amount on the ground that eventually, the convict had surrendered before the concerned jail to undergo his sentence, as such forfeiture of the enƟre amount of Rs.2 lacs each was unjust, on the extremely higher side and not called for. 3.

I have heard counsel for the parƟes and have gone through the record and its analysis would lead to the following outcome. Jyoti Sharma 2024.12.20 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh

CRM-M No. 34572 of 2020 4.

It is undisputed that the peƟƟoners have undertaken to produce Sandip Singh within the Ɵme frame of furlough, however, Sandip Singh did not surrender within the Ɵme frame which led to forfeiture of surety bonds. It also remain undisputed that Sandip Singh surrendered later on and was convicted under SecƟon 9 of Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988. Counsel for the peƟƟoners submits that amount of Rs.2 lacs each is extremely on the higher side and the peƟƟoners are not in a financial capacity to deposit Rs.2 lacs each. Counsel submits that the peƟƟoners stood sureƟes being co-villagers and in this part of the country people are kind enough to help each other and in case the peƟƟoners had not stood as sureƟes, it would have sent a negaƟve message in the community.

PeƟƟoners have never asked the convict not to surrender on Ɵme, rather whispering campaign was launched which probably led to peƟƟoner surrendering back. In nutshell, counsel for the peƟƟoners submits that they cannot afford to pay Rs.2 lacs each and will be saƟsfied if the amount is reduced to Rs.50,000/- each.

5.

State counsel strongly opposes such reducƟon and submits that no reducƟon is required.

6.

In the enƟrety of facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view and more parƟcularly the fact that convict was brought back to jusƟce and it is not a case where he is sƟll absconding, it would be desirable in the interest of jusƟce, equity and fair play if the impugned order is modified by reducing the penalty to Rs.50,000/- each from Rs.2 lacs.

7.

Given above, the impugned order dated 12.07.2017 is modified by reducing the amount to Rs.50,000/- each and the peƟƟoners are directed to deposit the same by 31.01.2025. If the said amount is not deposited by 31.01.2025, then this Court shall stand vacated automaƟcally by referring to SecƟon 362 r/w 482 CrPC and 403 r/w 528 BNSS, 2023. All pending applicaƟons, if any also stands disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 13.12.2024 JyoƟ Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

Jyoti Sharma 2024.12.20 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh