Tripura High Court
Subrata Roy vs The Union Of India & Anr on 10 July, 2018
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page - 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRL M APPL 1 OF 2018
Subrata Roy
---- Petitioner(s).
Versus
The Union of India & Anr.
---Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Lodh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. H. Deb, Asst. S.G.
Mr. A. Roy Barman, Addl. P.P.
Whether fit for reporting: Yes/No
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
10/07/2018
This is a Criminal Misc. Application under Section 449(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 against the impugned order dated 29.06.2018, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.4, in Cr. Misc. 03 of 2017, arising out of Special NDPS 42 of 2014 whereby and whereunder learned Addl. Sessions Judge issued distress warrant for recovery of bail bonds amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) from the appellant.
2. Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State of Tripura and Mr. H. Deb, learned ASG appearing for the Union of India.
3. Briefly stated, accused persons Harpinder Singh and Jasbinder were implicated in connection with NDPS Case No. Special NDPS 42 of 2014. The present appellant stood surety to ensure the release of accused persons Harpinder Singh and Jasbinder Singh on Page - 2 of 5 bail. After being released, the accused persons Harpinder Singh and Jasbinder Singh never appeared before the designated Court to face the trial and evaded the trial. The present appellant despite his strenuous efforts has failed to bring the aforesaid accused to face the trial.
4. The learned Special Judge vide his order dated 26.04.2017 has forfeited the bail bonds amount of surety Subrata Roy, the present appellant and another Ramendra Debbarma and a proceeding under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. was initiated against the present petitioner Subrata Roy and Ramendra Debbarma. The proceeding has been registered as CR. Misc.3 of 2017. Vide order dated 26.04.2017, the learned Special Judge issued permanent warrant of arrest against both the accused persons. After getting notice, the appellant herein appeared before the learned court below and on 10.05.2018 submitted a prayer for remitting the bail bond amount.
5. I have perused the order dated 29.06.2018 which is impugned herein and from that order it is found that sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner Subrata Roy to explain the reason for his failure to produce the accused persons Harpinder Singh and Jasbinder Singh before the court below.
6. Having failed to produce the accused persons as stated above, learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that both the sureties have failed to obey the directions of the Court and has not submitted any explanation showing his inability to produce the accused persons as per bail bond submitted by them before the Court.
7. The surety Ramendra Debbarma appears to be a Govt. employee. He has also violated the order of the Court and the bail bond Page - 3 of 5 submitted by him has already been forfeited as per order of the learned Special Judge passed on 26.04.2017.
8. The learned Special Judge also issued separate distress warrant against the appellant Subrata Roy and the bail bond was forfeited. The surety Subrata Roy, the appellant herein was directed to show cause as to why the amount reflected in the bail bond shall not be recovered from him as per provision of Section 446 of Cr.P.C.
9. The learned Special Judge did not find any reasonable ground to remit the amount in any manner and he also was not satisfied with the conduct of the sureties including the present petitioner Subrata Roy during the last three and half years. He issued distress warrants against the present appellant for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- in relation to the bail bond submitted by him on 12.12.2014 for accused Harpinder Singh and another for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- being the bail bond submitted by him on 13.11.2014 for accused Jasbinder Singh.
10. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in terms of Section 446(3) of Cr.P.C., this court has the ample discretionary power to remit any portion of payment and penalty and enforce payment in part only. The learned counsel has also placed a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1999 AIR SCW 4118n (Mohammed Kunju and Anr. V. State of Karnataka) particularly, at Para 15 of the said decision.
11. I have carefully read over the contents and observations made by the Apex Court.
12. The present case is related to drug smuggling which already has engulfed the entire State of Tripura and huge rackets are playing Page - 4 of 5 across the State forcing the young generation to consume cannabis and other illegal psychotropic substances. This has become a menace to the society. The appellant stood surety to ensure the release of accused Harpinder Singh and Jasbinder Singh on bail without knowing them. Knowing fully well that the accused persons are being involved in a heinous crime, he preferred to stand as surety so that they could get released, resulting their non-appearance and evading the trial afterwards.
13. Learned Special Judge has afforded enough opportunities for the last three and half years and issued show cause notice upon the sureties to bring the accused persons to face trial before the Court. But they did not obey the order of the learned Special Judge and they also could not show convincing explanation for their non-production before the Court to face the trial.
14. This Court is not unmindful to the discretionary power of this Court. But, according to me, it should be applied considering the facts and circumstances and gravity of the offence as committed by the accused persons. The appellant ought not to have stood as surety when the accused persons were not known to him and at that point of time even he knew the consequence if accused persons would not come back and evade the trial. Discretionary power should not be exercised to cause injustice to the society as a whole.
15. This Court is to uphold the rule of law but not to indulge to allow any such acts which is not in the interest of justice delivery system, particularly, when it is a crime which has direct impact on the society.
Page - 5 of 5
16. In the light of the discussions as aforestated, in my opinion, the learned Special Judge has not committed any error in passing an order of forfeiting the bail bond amount as well as issuing of distress warrant for recovery of the bail bond amount to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.
17. I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Special Judge. At this stage, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the order of the learned Special Judge may be kept in abeyance for one month to enable the appellant to arrange this amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs).
18. Heard Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State-respondent who has submitted that learned Special Judge considering the nature of the offence has forfeited the bail bond amount and issued distress warrant which cannot be said irrational and he has prayed for upholding the order passed by the learned Special Judge.
19. Mr. H. Deb, learned ASG appearing for the Union of India has adopted the submission of Mr. Roy Barman, learned Addl. P.P.
20. Accordingly, this petition is devoid of any merit. However, one month time is allowed to the appellant for compliance of the order passed on 29.06.2018 by the learned Special Judge (Addl. Sessions Judge), West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.4, in Cr. Misc.03 of 2017.
21. The Criminal Misc. application accordingly stands dismissed.
JUDGE