Back
FARJAND ALI
Ajam Khan Son of Shri Abdul Rahman Mev – Appellant
Versus
Fateh Mohammad @ Fattu Son of Sunped @ Suwa – Respondent
ORDER
1. By way of instant criminal appeal, the appellants has challenged the order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan in Criminal Misc. Case No. 309/2017 registered for proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., initiated in criminal case No. 165/2016 (CIS No. 1717/2016) titled as State versus Aajam & Ors. arising out of FIR No. 80/2011 registered at Police Station Pilani District Jhunjhunu for the offences punishable under Section 143, 336, 427, 307 and 120B IPC, whereby bail bonds of the appellants were forfeited and order for recovery of the amount of surety has been passed.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that the accused appellants were facing trial before the learned trial Court but on the day fixed for hearing, because of non-presence, their bail bonds were forfeited and warrant of arrests were issued against them vide order dated 16.11.2017. Owing to the non-service of the warrant of arrest, the accused appellants were declared absconders and accordingly a proceeding under Section 82-83 Cr.P.C. was initiated. Thereafter, the accused surrendered
Satisfactory explanations for non-appearance can lead to a reduction in forfeited bail amounts under Cr.P.C.
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.
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 court established that while a surety's bond must be forfeited for the accused's non-appearance, the court retains discretion to remit part of the penalty based on the circumstances surrounding t....
The court has discretion to remit penalties imposed on sureties under Section 446(3), considering the circumstances of the case and ensuring a fair outcome for the surety's financial status.
The court has discretion under Section 446 Cr.P.C to remit a portion of the penalty imposed on a surety, considering the financial situation of the surety and efforts to secure the accused's attendan....
Court holds that the penalty for surety bond forfeiture must consider the surety's efforts and circumstances; excessive penalties can be modified at judicial discretion.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
