Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Halima & Ors vs State on 10 May, 2017
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 370 / 2017
1. Halima W/o Shri Sadiq Mohammed.
2. Sanejar W/o Shri Rafique D/o Shri Sadiq Mohammed,
3. Jenam W/o Shri Jakir D/o Shri Sadiq Mohammed,
4. Kudartullah S/o Shri Sadiq Mohammed,
5. Ajmatullah S/o Shri Sadiq Mohammed
6. Rukhsana w/o Shri Arasd D/o Shri Sadiq Mohammed,, All by
Caste Mohammedan, R/o- Gudiya, Tehsil Tibbi, Distt.
Hanumangarh.
----Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
____________________________________________________
Counsel For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vipin Makkad
Counsel For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.R. Upadhayay, PP
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order 10/05/2017 The instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved with the order dated 2.8.2016 passed by the Distt. & Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh (for short 'the trial court'), whereby the trial court has rejected the application preferred on their behalf for dropping the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C.
It appears that two accused persons namely Chinda Singh and Bishan Singh were convicted and sentenced by the Addl.
(2 of 4) Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.19/1999 vide judgment dated 27.6.2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 302/32, 326 and 326/34 IPC. The above named accused persons preferred an appeal before this Court being D.B. Criminal Appeal No.388/2001 and this Court vide order dated 24.11.2003 has suspended the sentence of the aforesaid accused persons on a condition that they shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court. It appears that one Sadiq Mohammed stood surety for the accused appellants - Chinda Singh and Bishan Singh and both the accused appellants were released from jail.
It is noticed that while suspending the sentence of accused appellants - Chinda Singh and Bishan Singh, a condition was imposed that they will appear before the trial court in the month of January every year till the appeal filed by them is decided. However, the accused appellants - Chinda Singh and Bishan Singh have failed to appear before the trial court in the month of January, 2004 and a report to this effect was submitted before this Court by the trial court.
This Court vide order dated 21.5.2015 has issued warrant of arrest against the accused appellants - Chinda Singh and Bishan Singh and thereafter vide order dated 2.12.2015 has directed the trial court to initiate proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. Pursuant to that, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were initiated against Sadiq Mohammed but during the (3 of 4) pendency of the said proceedings, Sadiq Mohammed died and the present appellants being his legal heirs had participated in the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C.
The trial court while finally deciding the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 2.8.2016 has directed the present appellants to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Being aggrieved with this, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as a matter of fact Sadiq Mohammed stood surety for accused appellants Chinda Singh and Bishan Singh way back in the year 2004, however, later on the said accused persons had failed to adhere the conditions of the bail granted to them and despite serious efforts made by Sadiq Mohammed they have not surrendered themselves though their bail was cancelled. It is submitted that Sadiq Mohammed stood surety for accused persons Chinda Singh and Bishan Singh while acting bonafidely but those accused persons had breached his trust. It is also argued that now Sadiq Mohammed had expired on 2.2.2016 and looking to this fact, the order passed by the trial court of depositing amount of Rs.20,000/- may be modified and the said amount be ordered to be reduced.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the order dated (4 of 4) 2.8.2016 passed by the trial court.
Accordingly, the order dated 2.8.2016 passed by the trial court is modified and it is hereby directed that the appellants may deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- with the trial court by the next date of hearing. On depositing of the same, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. against the appellants shall be dropped.
With these observations and modification, this appeal is disposed of.
(VIJAY BISHNOI), J.
ms rathore/7