Rajpal Singh And Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

Vinod Kumar 2017.10.04 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.22446 of 2017 [ 1 ] *****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.22446 of 2017 Date of decision:03.10.2017 Raj Pal Singh and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) The petitioners have challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani, by which the surety, submitted by them at the time when their son, who was suffering life imprisonment, was released on parole from 29.05.2017 to 14.06.2017, has been ordered to be attached for recovery of the surety amount of `2 lacs.

Admittedly, son of the petitioners did not surrender on 14.06.2017 and was allegedly made to surrender by his father (petitioner no.1 herein) on 02.07.2017.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that since son of the petitioners has already surrendered on 02.07.2017, therefore, the impugned order dated 27.07.2017 should not have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no error in the

CWP No.22446 of 2017 [ 2 ] ***** impugned order because the petitioners had given the surety for producing their son, who was let out on parole from 29.05.2017 to 14.06.2017, in time but since their son, namely, Virender Pal, did not surrender on 14.06.2017 and was absconding, therefore, the surety submitted by the petitioners has rightly been ordered to be attached for recovery of the surety amount of `2 lacs. In view thereof, the present petition is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merit, though without any order as to costs. October 03, 2017 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge Whether speaking / reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No