Criminal Misc. No.M-1998 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.M-1998 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 05, 2011 Sukhbir Singh and another ….Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J (ORAL) The petitioners stood surety for convict Anil son of Sukhbir Singh, when he was granted furlough for two weeks. The amount of each surety bond was Rs.1.5 lac. Convict Anil did not surrender on 23.01.2009, the date fixed for his return to jail. Separate proceedings were initiated against Anil for his unauthorized absence from the jail. At behest of Superintendent of Jail, learned District Magistrate, Sonepat, took cognizance of the violation of the surety bonds and while forfeiting the same, ordered that the amount of Rs.1.5 lac be realized from each of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have challenged the said order before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the convict after release from the jail had suffered illness and as such could not surrender himself in time. There was no deliberate absence from the jail. The convict himself surrendered on 16.02.2009, i.e. after 24 days of 1 Criminal Misc. No.M-1998 of 2011 unlawful absence. The learned counsel further submits that the whole amount of the surety bonds could be forfeited/ordered to be realized only in exceptional cases, while in the present case, the bare perusal of the impugned order would not reveal any special reason to justify the realization of the whole amount of the surety bonds. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the record. Convict Anil was released on furlough for only two weeks but he remained absent for additional 24 days from the jail. However, he himself surrendered on 16.02.2009, which is apparent from order dated 16.02.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sonepat. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the convict had suffered illness and on that count he could not surrender himself before the jail authorities on the due date, appears to be genuine. No special reason has been assigned by the learned District Magistrate, Sonepat while passing an order to realize the whole of the amount, mentioned in the surety bonds. I find no ground to set aside the order but keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the amount to be realized from the petitioners is reduced to Rs.40,000/- (Forty thousand only) each, which they shall pay within a period of one month from the passing of this order. Disposed of. 05.12.2011 (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) vcgarg JUDGE 1 Criminal Misc. No.M-1998 of 2011 1