Skip to content


Sabia and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 1985
Judge
Reported in1985WLN(UC)658
AppellantSabia and anr.
RespondentState of Rajasthan
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - section 449--surety bond--forfeiture of--accused s apprehended by sureties and taken to police chowki--accused already acquitted--appeal barred by limitation--held, lenient view be taken.;appeal partly allowed. - - in a case like the present where the sureties have helped in apprehending the accused and has been ultimately been acquitted the court must take a lenient view......the recovery of rs. 3000/- from the appellants sabia and kana each. the appellants had given surety bonds for the appearance of the accused sabia who had been released on bail. the accused absented himself and therefore, the proceedings under section 446 cr. pc were drawn. notice was issued to the appellants but they did not choose to file rely, as a result of which the learned judge ordered the forfeiture of the entire amount of the surety bonds. the accused sabia was apprehended by the sureties and was taken to police chowki, paliyada where from he was produced before the court under arrest. besides this, sabia after trial has already been acquitted on august 6,1984 and in these circumstances the appellants having given their full support in securing the presence of the accused.....
Judgment:

Vinod Shanker Dave, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 449 Cr. PC against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, dated October 17, 1984 whereby he ordered the recovery of Rs. 3000/- from the appellants Sabia and Kana each. The appellants had given surety bonds for the appearance of the accused Sabia who had been released on bail. The accused absented himself and therefore, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr. PC were drawn. Notice was issued to the appellants but they did not choose to file rely, as a result of which the learned Judge ordered the forfeiture of the entire amount of the surety bonds. The accused Sabia was apprehended by the sureties and was taken to police chowki, Paliyada where from he was produced before the court under arrest. Besides this, Sabia after trial has already been acquitted on August 6,1984 and in these circumstances the appellants having given their full support in securing the presence of the accused ought to have been dealt with leniently. This appeal filed is barred by limitation but I condone the delay keeping in view the fact that ends of justice would meet in doing so. In a case like the present where the sureties have helped in apprehending the accused and has been ultimately been acquitted the court must take a lenient view. The appellants are rustic villagers and the reply could not be filed on his behalf even then the circumstances ought to have been taken note of.

2. In the facts and circumstances of the case I partly allow the appeal maintain the order of forfeiture of the surety bonds but reduce the amount to be recovered from Rs. 3000/- each to 500/- each. In this case it is reported that the sheep belonging to appellants have been seized in pursuance of the warrant issued by the Court if so same shall be handed over back to the appellants on their depositing Rs. 500/- each.


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