Crl. Revision No. 771 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 771 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: March 2, 2010 Nirmal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. AS Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This revision by Nirmal Singh, petitioner/surety, is directed against the order dated 10.1.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner preferred against the order dated 27.8.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala, imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 446 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Hardial Singh @ Gurdial Singh was named as an accused in FIR No. 10 dated 3.7.2007 registered at Police Station Mahal Kalan, under Sections 325, 323, 149/148 IPC. He was granted bail. This petitioner executed a surety bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- for his appearance before the Court on each and every date of hearing. However, he failed to appear before the trial Court and as a result of which his bail was cancelled and Crl. Revision No. 771 of 2009 2 personal bail bonds were forfeited to the State. Notice under Section 446 of the Code was issued to the petitioner, who put in appearance before the trial court. He was given opportunity to show cause as to why penalty of Rs. 50,000/- of the forfeited surety bond be not imposed upon him on account of non appearance of the said accused. In reply to the notice, he stated that the accused had gone abroad. Keeping in view the reply so given by him, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed by the trial Court. In the appeal that penalty was maintained. Notice of the revision petition was given to the State. I have heard the counsel for both the sides. At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer to the remission of some part of the penalty so imposed upon the petitioner, on the ground that he came out with the truthful facts before the trial court that the accused had gone abroad. He also made a passing reference to the bonafides of the petitioner, who has already deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 25.3.2009. The accused was standing his trial for the offences under Sections 325, 323, 149/148 IPC. It was not disputed at the time of arguments that he had gone abroad. The petitioner was bound to pay the penalty for the surety bond after the accused escaped the reins of law and failed to appear before the trial court. The surety bond was executed by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and the whole of that amount was imposed as penalty. Keeping in view the circumstances, I am of the considered view that some amount is to be remitted. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is Crl. Revision No. 771 of 2009 3 remitted and the petitioner is directed to deposit balance amount of Rs. 30,000/-. The amount, if already deposited before the trial court, be deducted from that penalty, before issuing warrants for the recovery of the amount. The revision is disposed of accordingly. March 2, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE