Skip to content


Jiwan S/O Fateram Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 24 of 1974
Judge
Reported in1978WLN(UC)126
AppellantJiwan S/O Fateram Jat
RespondentState of Rajasthan and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - forfeiture of bail bond--notice served on nephew of petition--held, notice is not properly served and order of forfeiture is liable to be set aside.;the notice was in fact not served on the petitioner but on his one of his nephews whether the nephew, on whom the notice was served, was an adult member of the family of the petitioner is not known.;in this case, the notice has not been served properly and no opportunity was given to him to show cause.;the order forfeiting the bail bond of the petitioner is liable to be set aside.;order accordingly - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - ..........thereupon, the learned magistrate issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him why his surety bond should not be forfeited. on february 23, 1973, he petitioner was produced before the court in pursuance of a bailable warrant. on that day, he was asked to file a reply for the show cause notice, but he did not file any reply. thereafter the magistrate forfeited the bond.3. we find in the records that the notice was in fact not served on the petitioner but on one of his nephews. whether the nephew, on whom the notice was served, was an adult member of the family of the petitioner is not known no evidence has been produced to show that he was so. in such a situation, if the petitioner was brought before the court under a bailable warrant and was asked to file a reply to the show.....
Judgment:

C. Honniah, C.J.

1. This petition is filed against the order of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Deeg dated February 23, 1973, by which the Magistrate forfeited the bond executed by the petitioner.

2. The facts are these. The petitioner stood a surety to one Nivisingh, who was accused of an offence punishable Under Section 380/457 I.P.C. On June 8, 1972. Nivisingh was absent. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him why his surety bond should not be forfeited. On February 23, 1973, he petitioner was produced before the court in pursuance of a bailable warrant. On that day, he was asked to file a reply for the show cause notice, but he did not file any reply. Thereafter the Magistrate forfeited the bond.

3. We find in the records that the notice was in fact not served on the petitioner but on one of his nephews. Whether the nephew, on whom the notice was served, was an adult member of the family of the petitioner is not known No evidence has been produced to show that he was so. In such a situation, if the petitioner was brought before the court under a bailable warrant and was asked to file a reply to the show cause notice which, in fact, was no served on him at all, it is difficult to comprehend how he could have filed any reply at all. In this case, the notice has not been served properly and no opportunity was given to him to show cause It is brought to my notice subsequent to the petitioner appeared before the court, the accused appeared in court and gave fresh surety.

4. In these circumstances, the order forfeiting the bail bond of the petitioner is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is ordered so.


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