Allahabad High Court
Mumtaj And Another vs State Of U.P. on 31 October, 2018
Author: Aniruddha Singh
Bench: Aniruddha Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6920 of 2006 Appellant :- Mumtaj And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1-Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State respondent and perused the record.
2-This criminal appeal has been preferred by Mumtaj and Jamshed against the State challenging the order dated 4.11.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 7/11 of 2003 by which the bail bond of the sureties Mumtaj and Jamshed was forfeited and surety amount of Rs.15,000/- each was directed to deposit and to produce accused Iqbal on each and every date under Section 446 Cr.P.C.
3-Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order passed by the appellate court is illegal, arbitrary and against law and fact.
4-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has supported the appellate order and contended that the impugned order is just and legal and there is no illegality or infirmity and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5-In nutshell, the facts of the case are that in S.T.No. 744 of 2002 accused Iqbal was absent on 21.6.2003 and non-bailable warrants were issued on 15.7.2003, 5.8.2003, 29.8.2003, 22.9.2003, 8.10.2002 and 4.11.2003 due to absence and bail bonds of sureties/appellants were forfeited. Notice was issued to the sureties. Subsequently, accused Iqbal was surrendered before the court on 13.1.2004 and the application for recalling of the order of non-bailable warrants was dismissed and accused Iqbal was taken into custody and was sent to jail and the objection of the appellants (6kh) was dismissed and they were directed to deposit the surety amount of Rs.15,000/- each within fifteen days. Hence this appeal.
6-From perusal of the record, it transpires that accused Iqbal was surrendered before the court and he was sent to jail.
7-From perusal of the record, it also transpires that bonds of sureties have been forfeited and after issuing the notice, objection (6kh) was filed and that was also rejected because bail bonds of the appellants were forfeited and objection was dismissed according to law. Hence, this Court finds no ground to allow the appeal in toto.
8-Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that according to Section 446 Cr.P.C. the Court has power to remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only.
9-Section 446 (3) Cr.P.C. is quoted below which reads as under:
"446. Procedure when bond has been forfeited-(1)........................................... .................................................................... (2)............................................................. (3) The Court may, after recording its reasons for doing so, remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only. (4)..................................................
(5)..........................................................."
10-From perusal of Section 446(3) Cr.P.C., it is very clear that the Court has power to remit any portion of the penalty.
11-On this issue, in the case of Ram Prasad Vs. State of U.P., reported in 1983 (2) Crimes 145, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that remission in surety amount can be granted at any stage.
12-On this issue, this Court in the case of Rajpal Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2009 Cr.L.J. 160-161 has held that where the sureties have produced the accused before the Court, a lenient view may be taken in the matter of recovery of surety amount.
13-On the same issue, this Court in the case of Jagganath VS. State of U.P., reported in 2009 Cr.L.J. NOC 190 has held that where the surety on the receipt of show cause notice produced the accused before the Court his application for discharge and the remission of penalty would not be rejected merely on the ground that the Court has already passed an order for forfeiture of bail amount.
14-It is admitted that accused has been produced before the court and he was sent to jail. In the opinion of this Court, lenient view may be taken against the appellants.
15-In the above backdrop and the law laid down by the Courts, the ends of justice will be done if the amount of sureties be remitted upto Rs.5,000/- each in place of Rs.15,000/-each and the appeal is liable to be allowed in part.
16-The appeal is partly allowed and the amount of sureties Rs.15,000/- each is remitted to Rs.5,000/- each. The appellants are directed to deposit the amount of Rs.5,000/- each within two months from today. In case of default, action may be taken against the appellants in accordance with law.
17-Copy of this order be sent to the C.J.M. concerned for compliance and necessary action.
18-Compliance report be submitted within three months.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 OP