JUDGMENT :

HARSH BUNGER J.

The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 01.03.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned District Magistrate, Rohtak whereby the surety amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- each furnished by one Sh. Hitender and the present petitioner (Dharmender) has been ordered to be forfeited.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that one Sumit, son of Subhash, was undergoing life imprisonment in District Jail, Rohtak, in connection with FIR No. 174 dated 18.03.2016, registered under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The said convict was released on furlough for a period of three weeks on 31.01.2020. At the time of his release, the petitioner Dharamender, along with one Hitender, stood surety for him and furnished surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each. As per the terms and conditions of the furlough, the convict was required to surrender before the District Jail, Rohtak, on 22.02.2020. However, he failed to surrender within the stipulated period. Consequently, FIR No. 66 dated 03.03.2020 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak, under Sections 8 and 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act, 1988. The convict was thereafter apprehended by the local police on 12.03.2020 and produced before the jail authorities. Subsequently, upon trial, the accused was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners Act, 1988, and was convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, vide judgment dated 02.11.2021 (Annexure P-1), to the period already undergone in judicial custody along with a fine of Rs. 500/-.

2.1. Thereafter, respondent No. 2, vide impugned order dated 01.03.2023 (Annexure P-3), ordered forfeiture of the entire surety amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- each furnished by the sureties. The sureties were further directed to deposit the forfeited amount within a period of 30 days in the District Jail, Rohtak, failing which the same was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

3. In the aforementioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court for seeking relief as noticed hereinabove.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen. He submits that the petitioner acted with extreme diligence and provided active assistance to the police officials to ensure the re-arrest of the convict. It is further contended that the petitioner shared WhatsApp screenshots and location details of the convict with the police, which directly led to the arrest of convict. He argues that the impugned order is harsh and unjust as it penalizes the petitioner, who had assisted police in arresting the convict. He further points out that no direction for forfeiture was passed by the trial court while sentencing the convict for the jumping furlough. It is further argued that a perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no allegation or finding that the petitioner acted in collusion with the convict or had instigated him not to surrender.

4.1 Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed upon the petitioner, is excessive and, therefore, to meet the ends of justice, a remission may be granted, as he was not having an idea that the convict will jump the bail. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Kunju v. State of Karnataka, 1999(4) Recent Criminal Reports 726 (SC).

5. Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Sr. DAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court, opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner stood surety of accused-Sumit, as such, it is the duty of the petitioner to produce the convict in the Court. Thus, the learned District Magistrate, Rohtak, has rightly