Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Satish Chander And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 12 August, 2024

Author: Anoop Chitkara

Bench: Anoop Chitkara

                                           Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104656



CRM-M-18940-2021                                                                            1

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                     AT CHANDIGARH

322                                        CRM-M-18940-2021
                                           Date of Decision: 12.08.2024

Satish Chander and another                           ....Petitioners

                              Versus

State of Punjab and another                        ....Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:      Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
              for the petitioners.

              Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.

                               *****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

Aggrieved by the imposition of Rs.50,000/- of penalty upon the sureties because the convict for whom they had stood surety overstayed parole, petitioners have come up before this Court for quashing of the order dated 24.02.2021 by filing the present petition under Section 482 CrPC.

2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were surety before the District Magistrate for return of convict after the completion of period of parole. He further submits that convict was mentally unstable and was undergoing treatment for the same in a hospital but they failed to produce him, however, they lodged missing report qua him. Due to their failure to produce convict, the concerned Magistrate imposed penalty i.e. 50% of amount of bond i.e. one lac rupees (Rs.50,000/- each on the petitioners). He further submits that petitioner No.2 has already deposited Rs.50,000/- and petitioner No.2 deposited Rs.15,000/- in terms of previous order dated 12.07.2023, on 06.11.2023.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners paid Rs.50,000/- +15,000/- each as non-return of convict after parole, which was beyond their control and prayed for refund of Rs.35,000/- deposited by petitioner No.2.

4. Given above, in the entirety of facts and circumstances, penalty is reduced to Rs.15,000/- each, which is already paid by both the petitioners and petitioner No.2 shall be entitled for refund of excess amount of Rs.35,000/-. The concerned Magistrate to file the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 15-08-2024 22:40:07 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:104656 CRM-M-18940-2021 2 proceedings after verification of deposit and shall ensure return of Rs.35,000/- to petitioner No.2.

5. Petition is disposed of to the extent mentioned above. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.




                                                  (ANOOP CHITKARA)
                                                      JUDGE
12.08.2024
anju rani

              Whether speaking/reasoned                  Yes
              Whether reportable?                        No




                                         2 of 2
                     ::: Downloaded on - 15-08-2024 22:40:08 :::