The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for leniency in cases where the surety did not facilitate the escape of the convict and where the convict has surrendered.

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the order dated 21.11.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2 i.e. District Magistrate, Rewari whereby the petitioners have been directed to deposit the surety amount of Rs.2,00,000/- mentioned in the surety bonds executed by the petitioners for getting the convict Jitender @ Monu son of Gulshan Kumar released on parole who was undergoing life imprisonment after being convicted in FIR No.90 dated 24.06.2008 registered under Sections 302, 34, 120-B IPC and Section 25 of Indian Arms Act at Police Station Rampura, District Rewari.

2. The brief facts of the case are that convict Jitender @ Monu son of Gulshan Kumar was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari in FIR No.90 dated 24.06.2008 under Sections 302, 34, 120-B IPC and Section 25 of Indian Arms Act Police Station Rampura, District Rewari.

3. The said convict was confined in District Jail, Faridabad and filed an application for grant of four weeks parole. On verification, he was granted the same. At that stage, he was directed to produce surety of the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for his release. The petitioners are stated to have stood surety for him and had furnished the surety bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the release of the convict on four weeks parole. Ultimately, the convict was released by the Superintendent, District Jail Faridabad on 21.07.2016 and he was directed to surrender in Jail on 19.08.2016.

4. As the convict did not surrender, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice dated 26.08.2016 to the petitioners stating that on 11.07.2016, the petitioners had furnished a surety bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the release of convict Jatinder @ Monu son of Gulshan Singh but the convict had failed to surrender in Jail and had therefore, violated the terms and conditions of the bond. The petitioners were directed to file a reply to the notice within 15 days. A copy of one such notice dated 26.08.2016 is annexed as Annexure P-1.

5. The petitioners filed their respective replies to the show cause notice. Petitioner No.1 stated that he was 70 years old and suffering from various ailments and was unable to deposit the surety amount but would make an attempt to produce the convict before the Jail authorities. The stand taken by petitioner No.2 was more or less similar.

6. Be that as it may, respondent No.2 i.e. the District Magistrate, Rewari vide his order dated 21.11.2016 ordered the forfeiture of the surety amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as mentioned in the surety bond of the petitioners and the petitioners were directed to deposit an amount Rs.2,00,000/- within a period of 45 days. A copy of the impugned order dated 21.11.2016 is annexed as Annexure P-4.

7. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No.1 is an old person of the age of 70 years. He is suffering from various diseases like hypertension heart disease etc. and he was a poor person. So far as petitioner No.2 was concerned, he had passed away. There was no evidence to suggest that the petitioners had connived with the convict or had hatched a conspiracy so as to facilitate his escape pursuant to his release on parole. There was also no evidence that the petitioners had any knowledge about the likelihood of the convict absconding. Even otherwise, convict Jitender @ Monu has since surrendered and was in custody. Therefore, the impugned order was liable to be quashed or in the alternate the impugned order could be modified and the surety amount could be reduced. Reliance is placed on the judgments in the case of Malook Singh Versus State of Punjab, CRA-S-1027-2022, decided on 04.05.2023 and Akhilesh Kumar & another versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-28978-2011, decided on 10.07.2012.

9. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the petitioners was very well awar