TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Dhiran Rai – Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ] CRL.M.A. 23486/2023
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.A. 705/2023 & CRL.M.A. 23485/2023 (Stay)
3. This is a criminal appeal under Section 449(2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 assailing the order dated 17.08.2023 passed by learned ASJ, District North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in case titled State vs. Akash & Ors, bearing FIR No. 229/2022 under Sections 308/326/323/506/34 IPC, 1860 registered at Police Station Bhajanpura, whereby the surety bond of the appellant, who stood as a surety for the co-accused Raja, was forfeited and simultaneously a warrant of attachment against surety amount of Rs.25,000/- was also issued.
4. Issue notice.
5. Notice accepted by Mr. Shoaib Haider, learned APP for State.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant before this Court had stood surety for the accused in the aforesaid FIR namely one Raja, for a surety amount of Rs.25,000/-.
7. The appellant had furnished his surety bond of Rs.25,000/- and placed on record the documents of his Scooty Activa bearing regist
The court emphasized the importance of the appellant's cooperation and provision of detailed information in the trial court's decision regarding the forfeiture of the surety bond and issuance of a wa....
The discharge of the accused from the offence by the trial court influenced the court's decision to set aside the orders forfeiting the surety bonds.
The discharge of the accused by the trial court influenced the court's decision to set aside the forfeiture of the surety bonds.
A surety bond is unenforceable without a corresponding personal bond from the accused, as per S. 499 CrPC.
A surety must be afforded an opportunity to contest the imposition of a penalty for non-production of an accused, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the prescribed procedure under Section 446 CrPC for the forfeiture of surety bonds, including issuing show cause notic....
The obligations of a surety under Section 446 Cr.P.C. and the court's discretion to modify the sentence based on compliance and the surrender of the accused.
The court has the discretion to remit a portion of the penalty imposed on sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C. based on the interest of justice.
The judgment establishes that a surety's obligation remains despite the accused's non-appearance, allowing for reduced penalties at the court's discretion.
The court can reduce penalty for bond forfeiture, reaffirming judicial discretion in penalty assessment.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.