Satisfactory explanations for non-appearance can lead to a reduction in forfeited bail amounts under Cr.P.C.

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 before the trial Court and moved an application for bail along with a reply under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. for dropping the proceeding. After considering the averments made in the reply filed by the appellants under proceeding initiated under Section 446 Cr.P.C., the learned trial Court did not find the explanation satisfactory and thus directed to forfeit the entire amount of bond and surety. The bail amount of Rs. 20,000/- of accused appellant Ajam Khan with two sureties of like amount of Rs. 10,000/- was directed to be forfeited. Likewise, the bail amount of Rs. 50,000/- of accused Fateh Mohammad and two sureties of like amount of Rs. 25,000/- were directed to be forfeited. Accordingly, a total sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the appellant No.1 Ajam Khan and Rs. 1 lac from the appellant No.2 Fateh Mohammad has been ordered to be recovered and for that proceeding has been initiated.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that the explanation furnished by the accused-appellant before the learned trial Court for their non-appearance on the date fixed was satisfactorily explained as well as they made surrender before the learned trial Court at their own and the appellants belong to a very poor family, therefore, a lenient view may be taken against them.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the revision appeal.

5. Heard and perused the material available on record.

6. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to reduce the amount which has been forfeited and directed to be recovered from the appellants.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

8. The order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chirawa District Jhunjunu in criminal case No. 309/2017 is hereby quashed ans set aside. It is directed that the accused-appellant Ajam Khan shall deposit a sum of Rs. 4,000/- and the accused appellant Fateh Mohammad shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, for their bonds and their sureties; in total both the appellants shall deposit Rs. 14,000/- with the learned trial Court within a period of two months from today.

9. In the event the said amount is deposited with the learned trial Court within the time stipulated, the proceeding under Section 446 and 82/83 of the Cr.P.C. and all consequential proceeding for recovery of fine etc. shall be deemed to be quashed and set aside.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.