Back
SHAMIM AHMED
Ram Sanehi – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. This is an appeal under Section 449 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 5.6.2003 passed by Additional Session Judge, District Barabanki (FTC Court No.29) in Criminal Misc. Case No. 5/2023 : State Vs. Ram Sanehi and another sentencing the appellants under Section 446 Cr.P.C. to pay Rs.15,000/- each with default stipulation by means of which the surety bonds of the appellants have been forfeited.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in complaince the order dated 21.08.2023, the appellants have already filed the Supplementary affidavit dated 05.01.2024, which is available on record.
4. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the appellants were sureties of Rs.15000/- each in S.T. No. 200/1994, under Section 394/412 I.P.C. of accused Dinesh Yadav but he jumped the bail.
5. Learned counsel for appellants has further submitted that when accused Dinesh Yadav did not appear before the court, notice was issued to appellants (sureties) Ram Sanehi and Parsu Ram under Section 446 Cr.P.C.,
The court has the discretion to remit a portion of the penalty imposed on sureties under Section 446 Cr.P.C. based on the interest of justice.
The discharge of the accused by the trial court influenced the court's decision to set aside the forfeiture of the surety bonds.
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.
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.
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.
Upon forfeiture of a bail bond due to an accused's non-appearance, sureties remain liable for the penalty; however, appellate courts possess the discretion to reduce the quantum of the penalty in the....
Upon forfeiture of a bail bond under S. 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, courts have the discretion to reduce the quantum of penalty imposed on sureties, even if the accused was not produced, i....
The court may reduce penalties for bail bond forfeiture upon consideration of the surety's circumstances.
Sureties are liable for forfeiture of bail bonds; penalty can be reduced at the court's discretion.
The liability of sureties ends upon the accused's surrender, and unjust forfeiture of the surety amount violates principles of justice and equity.
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
