Back
2011 Supreme(Chh) 181
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.
Girdharilal
Vs.
State of M.P. (Now C.G.)
[Alongwith Criminal Appeal No. 691 of 1994]
Criminal Appeal No. 690 of 1994
Decided On: 20.06.2011
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant:Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate
The bonafide efforts of sureties to produce the accused in a criminal trial are crucial in determining their liability for penalty.
Headnote:
Surety - Criminal Law - IPC 302 - The court discussed the liability of sureties for the accused's non-appearance in a criminal trial. The court emphasized the bonafide efforts made by the sureties to produce the accused and held that no case for imposing penalty against the sureties was made out.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants stood as sureties for the accused in a criminal trial. The accused remained absent, and the sureties were penalized. The appellants argued that their conduct was bonafide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sureties made bonafide efforts to produce the accused and were not liable for penalty.
Issues: Liability of sureties for the accused's non-appearance, bonafide efforts of the sureties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the bonafide efforts made by the sureties to produce the accused and held that no case for imposing penalty against the sureties was made out.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order penalizing the sureties was set aside.
Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.
1. These appeals have been filed against a common order dated 28th of June, 1994 passed in Misc. Judicial Cases (Criminal) No(s) 1/90 & 2/90 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has imposed the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon each appellant after rejection of their plea against the show-cause issued to them on account of default of appearance of accused- Chhattar Singh in Sessions Trial No. 96/88 for whom they stood as sureties. The above Sessions Trial is still pending as the accused has not been arrested till date. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:--
Chhattar Singh is the sole accused in Sessions Trial No. 96/88 of the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. He was prosecuted u/s 302 IPC. The 2 appellants are the sureties of accused- Chhattar Singh in Sessions Trial No. 96/88. They executed surety bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each on 12.9.86. Appellant- Ram Prasad is father of accused-Chhattar Singh and appellant- Girdharilal is real brother of accused- Chhattar Singh.
Chhattar Singh participated in proceedings of Sessions Trial till November, 1988. Thereafter he remained absent on many occasions and ultimately on 29.3.89 a warrant of arrest was issued against him and proceedings against sureties (appellants herein) were drawn. Show-cause notices were issued to the appellants in their separate proceedings and replies were filed by them. The appellants took stand that they tried their best to get the accused produced before the Sessions Court, but they failed; the accused was once arrested in connection with preventive case No. 35/92 u/ss 151, 107 & 116(3) Cr.P.C. of the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Durg; On the report of appellant- Girdharilal, he was arrested in that case on 1.4.92 and remained in jail upto 17.4.92, The arrest of the accused was reported by the police to the Sessions Court by memo dated 2.4.92, but during this period he could not be produced before the Sessions Court and ultimately he was released on bail in the said case. The contentions of the appellants were that they had made all efforts for arrest and production of the accused in Sessions Trial No. 96/88, their conduct was bonafide, therefore, no penalty should be imposed against them.
The learned Sessions Judge after considering the replies of the appellants, rejected their contentions and held that the appellants were liable for penalty. The Sessions Judge, therefore, imposed the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each (the full amount of surety bonds executed by the appellants) against the appellants and directed for recoveries in accordance with law.
2. Mr. Uttam Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no reasonable ground to impose penalty on the appellants. Appellants were quite vigilant. As soon as the accused met appellant- Girdharilal, he tried to take him to the Court; on denial and quarrel he made a report to the police on which a preventive proceeding was drawn and he was taken into custody, but even after that he could not be produced before the concerned Sessions Court. Therefore the conduct of the appellants as sureties was quite bonafide.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the Sessions Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Misc. Cases as also Sessions Trial No. 96/88.
5. The appellants are father and real brother of accused-Chhattar Singh. The accused was prosecuted in a case u/s 302 IPC. The appellants executed surety bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each for release of the accused in the said sessions case giving undertaking to produce the accused on all hearings of the trial. The records of the sessions case would show that after releasing on bail on the surety bond
