Mahender Singh vs State Of Haryana on 15 May, 2009

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH


                   Criminal Appeal No. 1063-SB of 2009
                      Date of decision: 15th May, 2009

Mahender Singh

                                                                ... Appellant

                                  Versus

State of Haryana
                                                           ... Respondent


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Present:    Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate for the appellant.

            Mr. S.S. Kharab, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana
            for the State.


KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

One Mehtab was named as accused in case FIR No. 56

dated 11.02.2008 registered at Police Station Agroha under Sections 307,

332, 353, 186, 323, 279, 336 IPC.

Appellant had furnished surety bonds on 22nd August, 2008,

in which he undertook that Mehtab shall appear before the Court on each

and every date and in case he fails to appear, appellant will be liable to

pay Rs.20,000/-.

Mehtab, after grant of bail, failed to appear before the Court.

Accordingly, a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was effected and

he was declared as Proclaimed Offender on 26th February, 2009. Accused

Mehtab absented from the Court on 3rd November, 2008, thus, the trial

Court held the appellant liable to pay the surety amount of Rs.20,000/-.

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is a

very poor person and is the only breadwinner of his family and he is not
Criminal Appeal No. 1063-SB of 2009 2

able to pay Rs.20,000/-. Counsel has further submitted that the appellant

is an illiterate person. He had made each and every effort to search for

accused Mehtab. Counsel has stated that the appellant is still making

efforts and as and when Mehtab is found he will produce him before the

Court. Counsel has further stated that the trial Court has not taken into

consideration mitigating circumstances and has imposed entire amount of

surety as penalty. Counsel has stated that this Court, taking into

consideration the submissions made above, should leniently deal with the

appellant.

Counsel for the State has stated that Mehtab is still at large.

Therefore, penalty has been rightly imposed by the Court below.

Taking into consideration various submissions made by

counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that ends of justice will be fully

met in case appellant is made to pay Rs.10,000/- as penalty. Accordingly,

the amount of penalty, to be paid by the appellant, is reduced from

Rs.20,000/- to Rs.10,000/-.

With these modifications, present appeal is disposed off.

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
May 15, 2009
rps