Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dinesh Kumar And Anr vs State Of Haryana on 11 December, 2014
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
CRR No.2666 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRR No.2666 of 2014
Date of decision: 11.12.2014
Dinesh Kumar and another
..... Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMIT RAM
Present: Mr. Kanwar Satbir Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. H.S. Deol, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
*******
S.S. SARON, J.
Learned counsel for the State has filed affidavit of Sh. Shamsher Singh Dahiya, Superintendent Jail, Central Jail, Hisar mentioning the period of imprisonment undergone by convict Devender @ Nanha. The same is taken on record.
This revision petition has been filed by petitioners Dinesh Kumar and Ranbir Singh aggrieved against the order dated 7.5.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar whereby their appeal against the order dated 30.8.2011 passed by the learned District Magistrate has been dismissed.
BRIJ MOHAN2015.01.07 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.2666 of 2014 -2-
One Devender @ Nanha son of Chander Singh was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Hissar on 30.3.2010 in case FIR No.188 dated 18.7.2005 registered at Police Station Narnaund for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, 325, 341, 148, 149 and 120-B Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, besides, pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-. The said convict Devender @ Nanha aggrieved against the said order of his conviction and sentence has filed CRA-D- 417-DB of 2010 in this Court, which is pending.
The convict Devender @ Nanha while undergoing his imprisonment was released on temporary basis on parole for six weeks for agriculture purpose vide order dated 4.5.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Hissar Range, Hissar. The petitioners on 4.5.2011 furnished surety bonds of Rs.2 lacs each before the District Magistrate, Hissar for securing the return after release of the convict Devender @ Nanha on parole. The convict was to surrender back at Central Jail, Hissar on 16.6.2011. However, while on parole the said convict was arrested by the Rajasthan police in case FIR No.318 dated 25.5.2011 registered at Police Station Bhadra for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 353, 147, 148 and 149 IPC, besides, Section 3/25 of the Arms Act as also Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The convict Devender @ Nanha was taken in custody on 29.5.2011 and was lodged in Sub-Jail Bhadra on 30.5.2011. Thereafter, he was shifted to Central Jail, Hissar on 13.7.2011 on transfer from Central Jail Bikaner (Rajasthan).
In view of the violation of the terms and conditions of the BRIJ MOHAN 2015.01.07 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.2666 of 2014 -3- security bonds that were furnished, the District Magistrate, Hissar forfeited the bonds and imposed a penalty of Rs.2 lacs which was to the extent of amount of bonds that were furnished. The appeal against the same has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar vide impugned order dated 7.5.2014.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in fact the petitioners are very poor persons and they had furnished the surety bonds being co-villagers of the convict Devender @ Nanha. It is submitted that they had furnished surety in good faith. The penalty of Rs.2 lacs is unduly harsh. The same was not liable to imposed as the convict Devender @ Nanha has since been arrested and is in custody.
In response learned counsel for the State has submitted that the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Hissar and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar are just and proper and thus warrant no interference. It is submitted that the convict Devender @ Nanha had breached the terms and conditions of the bonds inasmuch as he had not only gone out of the State but committed the offence for which an FIR has also been registered. Therefore, the bonds were rightly forfeited.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. It is not in dispute that the convict Devender @ Nanha was liable to surrender in jail on 16.6.2011 after his release on parole on 4.5.2011. However, during this period he went out of the State and committed an offence within the jurisdiction of Police Station Bhadra in which he was arrested on 29.5.2011. He was lodged in Sub-Jail, Bhadra on 30.5.2011. However, at present he is confined in Central Jail, Hissar on his transfer from Central Jail, Bikaner on 13.7.2011. Therefore, the convict is indeed BRIJ MOHAN 2015.01.07 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.2666 of 2014 -4- in custody. However, it is not in dispute that the conditions which were imposed for his temporary release, which are inter alia are to the effect that the prisoner during the period of temporary parole shall reside at village Narnaund and shall not without obtaining the prior permission of the District Magistrate visit any place not specified in the release order, besides, the prisoner shall during the period of his temporary release keep peace and maintain good behaviour have indeed been infringed. Besides, the convict did not surrender in jail in time. Section 446 Cr.P.C. provides the procedure when a bond that has been furnished is to be forfeited. Sub-Section (3) thereof envisages that the Court may, after recording its reasons for doing so, remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that there are sufficient reasons for remitting portion of the penalty and enforce payment in part only. The petitioners it is stated are poor persons and co-villagers of the convict Devender @ Nanha. They furnished surety being co-villagers of said Devender @ Nanha. They must have furnished bonds being unaware of the fact that the convict Devender @ Nanha would breach the terms and conditions of the same . Therefore, in the facts and circumstances it would be just and expedient if the amount of penalty that is to be paid by the petitioners is reduced from Rs.2 lacs to Rs.25,000/-, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall deposit the same within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Accordingly, the present revision petition is disposed of by reducing the penalty payable by the petitioners from Rs.2 lacs to Rs.25,000/- which shall be deposited by them within one month from the BRIJ MOHAN 2015.01.07 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CRR No.2666 of 2014 -5- receipt of copy of this order, failing which the impugned order as passed shall be operative.
(S.S. SARON) JUDGE (GURMIT RAM) JUDGE December 11th , 2014 Brij BRIJ MOHAN 2015.01.07 12:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh