Allahabad High Court
Ashraf Ali vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 7 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001CRILJ1120
Author: V.K. Chaturvedi
Bench: V.K. Chaturvedi
ORDER V.K. Chaturvedi, J.
1. These two criminal revisions have been preferred by same revisionist Ashraf Ali against two different orders one dated 18-10-2000 and another dated 3-11-2000 both passed by Mr. V.K. Gupta, IInd Add. District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in the same sessions trial No. 906 of 1996. in Criminal Revision No. 2297 of 2000, by the impugned order dated 18-10-2000 bail of the revisionist was cancelled, his bail bonds were forfeited and notices were issued to the sureties as to why the amount of bail bonds should not be recovered from them. Whereas in the connected Revision No. 2448 of 2000, by the impugned order dated 3-11-2000, the S.H.O. of police station concerned has been directed to execute non-bailable warrant issued against the revisionist.
2. Before proceeding further, it appears necessary to mention here that the revisionist is facing trial under Section 147, 427, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3(1), S.C.S.T. Act in S.T. No. 906 of 1996 before the Court of IInd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar.
3. I have heard Mr. Arvind Misra, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A.
4. Mr. Misra, learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist and his counsel could not appear before the trial Court at the time when the case was called out on 18-10-2000 with the result by the impugned order, bail of the revisionist was cancelled, his bail bonds were forfeited and notices were issued to the sureties. Mr. Misra further submited that after the above order, on that very day i.e. 18-10-2000 an application seeking exemption from personal attendance of the revisionist was moved by the revisionist's counsel, but that application was also rejected on the ground that it was moved after passing of the impugned order and as such according to Mr. Misra, cancellation of bail of the revisionist without giving him any notice is against the provisions of law. In support of his contention, Mr. Misra has relied on various judgements passed by different Benches of this Court reported in 1989 ACC 446 (sic) (Ram Laut v. State of U.P.) 1989 ACR 375 : (1989 All LJ 742) (Baju v. State of U.P.) 1988 ACC 6 (Hindi) (Guru Bachan Singh v. State U.P.) 1986 Allahabad Criminal Report (Har Govind v. State of U.P.) 1997 C.B.C. 155 (Wahid Uddin v. State of U.P.).
5. Thus, the point which emerges for consideration in this revision is whether without giving notice to the accused, can his bail be cancelled and his bail bonds be forfeited ?
6. At this juncture, Section 441(1) Cr.P.C. is relevant which is in the following terms :
Before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, bond for such sum of money as the police officer or Court as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person, and, when he is released on bail, by one or more sufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond, and shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the police officer or Court, as the case may be.
7. The above quoted provision contemplates execution of a bond by the accused. Form No. 45 of Schedule II, Cr.P.C. prescribes bond and bail bond for attendance before Officer In-Charge of Police Station or Court, which is as under :
((name) ... of... (police), having been arrested or detained without warrant by the officer in charge of... Police station (or having been brought before the Court of ... charged with the offence of ... and required to give security for my attendance before such officer or Court on condition that I shall attend such officer or Court on every day on which any investigation or trial is held with regard to such charge, and in case of my making default herein, I bind myself to forfeit to Government the sum of rupees.
Dated this ... day of ... 19....
(Signature)
8. The words used in Sub-section (1) of Section 441. Cr.P.C. leave no room for doubt that before a person is released on bail, said person also must execute a bond. The undertaking given by the accused as may be seen from Form No. 45 of Schedule II, was to attend the Court on every day of hearing and to appear before the Court whenever called upon, and if he fails to appear before the Court, then Court has no option but to cancel his bail, forfeit his bond and issue notices to the sureties, and if the accused in pursuance of the undertaking given by him in the bond, fails to appear before the Court, no notice is required before cancelling his bails and bonds.
9. As per record, the order impugned has been challenged by the revisionist, who is an accused and no appeal has been preferred by the sureties. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist, are distinguishable from the facts of the present case because in all the cases cited appeal was preferred by the sureties under Section 449, Cr.P.C.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the legal position on the point as discussed above, in the opinion of this Court, the orders impugned do not suffer from any illegality incorrectness and impropriety.
11. Both the revisions are therefore liable to be dismissed.
12. However, considering the fact that the revisionist is facing trial under Sections 147, 427, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3(1), S.C.S.T. Act before the Court of IInd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar and he was granted bail but on 18-10-2000 he could not appear and after the impugned order, as is clear from the ordersheet itself, an application was moved for his exemption from personal attendance by his counsel as well as the undertaking given by his counsel that the revisionist shall appear before the trial Court on the next date fixed and shall co-operate with the trial, it is provided that in case the revisionist appears before the trial Court on the next date fixed, then both the orders impugned dated 18-10-2000 and 3-11-2000 shall be kept in abeyance and he shall continue to remain on bail.
13. With the above observation, both the revisions stands dismissed.