IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
Bihari Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Appellant Bihari Lal has preferred the present appeal, under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C.’), against the order dated 25.5.2023, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2020, titled as, ‘State of H.P. vs. Kamal Kumar’, whereby, the learned trial Court has imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/-, on the appellant, and issued recovery warrant, under Section 421 Cr. P.C.
2. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, before this Court, as per the record, may be summed up as under:
One Kamal Kumar, S/o Joginder Singh, R/o Amritsar, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’) was arrested by the Police, in connection with case FIR No. 50/2020, dated 21.3.2020, registered under Sections 354-A and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’), with Police Station, Manali, District Kullu.
2.1 Accused Kamal Kumar filed an application under Section 439 Cr. P.C., bearin
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 court established that due process requires notice to be given to sureties before imposing penalties for bond forfeiture, ensuring adherence to natural justice.
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.
A surety cannot be penalized without being given a show cause notice and without the trial court recording grounds for forfeiture, as per the principles of natural justice.
Under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C., courts may discretionarily remit portion of penalty on forfeited surety bonds, factoring surety's sincere efforts, financial hardship and family impact, even in appeal 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....
A surety bond is unenforceable without a corresponding personal bond from the accused, as per S. 499 CrPC.
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.
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.