Skip to content


iqbal Singh Sunder Singh Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. No. 258-D of 1959
Judge
Reported inAIR1960P& H572; 1960CriLJ1493
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 160
Appellantiqbal Singh Sunder Singh
RespondentState
Excerpt:
.....application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - (2) it appears that amar singh failed to appear at a hearing of the case and when his bail-bond was ordered to be forfeited and a notice was issued to the surety to show cause why the amount should not be realised from him he did not even then appear and the learned magistrate passed the order for the recovery of rs. it seems to me that in a case of this nature it is not necessary for any court to fix the bail amount at anything like the sum of rs......petition by iqbal singh who stood surety in a bail-bond in the sun of rs. 1,000 filed by one amar singh who was an accused in a case under section 160, indian penal code.(2) it appears that amar singh failed to appear at a hearing of the case and when his bail-bond was ordered to be forfeited and a notice was issued to the surety to show cause why the amount should not be realised from him he did not even then appear and the learned magistrate passed the order for the recovery of rs. 500 from him. his appeal was dismissed by the learned additional district magistrate.(3) the only plea raised before me is for the reduction of the amount to be recovered from the petitioner and the ground advanced appears to me to be reasonable. it was pointed out that the offence for which amar singh.....
Judgment:
ORDER

(1) This is a revision petition by Iqbal Singh who stood surety in a bail-bond in the sun of Rs. 1,000 filed by one Amar Singh who was an accused in a case under section 160, Indian Penal Code.

(2) it appears that Amar Singh failed to appear at a hearing of the case and when his bail-bond was ordered to be forfeited and a notice was issued to the surety to show cause why the amount should not be realised from him he did not even then appear and the learned Magistrate passed the order for the recovery of Rs. 500 from him. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Magistrate.

(3) The only plea raised before me is for the reduction of the amount to be recovered from the petitioner and the ground advanced appears to me to be reasonable. It was pointed out that the offence for which Amar Singh was being tried was only under section 160, Indian Penal Code, which deals with affrays, the maximum sentence being one month's imprisonment or a fine of Rs. 100, and ordinarily in such a case the sentence would only be a small fine.

It seems to me that in a case of this nature it is not necessary for any Court to fix the bail amount at anything like the sum of Rs. 1,000 or even Rs. 500, the amount which the petitioner has been called upon to pay, and the nature and the seriousness of the offence of which the accused is being tried ought always to be borne in mind by the Court while fixing the amount of bail. I am therefore of the opinion that the bail amount fixed in the present case in the first instance was very excessive and in the circumstances I reduced the amount to be paid by the petitioner to Rs. 100.

(4) Order accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //