1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Puspendra Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL No.429/2009) S.B. Criminal Appeal under Section 449 of Criminal Procedure Code. Date of Order :: April, 07,2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat, for the Appellant. Mr. Javed Chaudhary PP for the State. The case of the appellant is that one Mukhtayarbi lodged a written report with regard to the abduction of her girl, Shabana @ Illo against Mr. Ramesh Choudhary on 14.08.2008. After a thorough investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against Ramesh and the trial began. During the trial, the prosecutrix appeared as P.W.1. She denied that any rape had been committed upon her. Subsequently, Ramesh moved a bail application before this Court. Vide order dated 10.12.2008, this Court granted bail to Ramesh. The present appellant, Mr. Puspendra Meena, who happened to be a tenant in the house belonging to Ramesh, gave surety of Rs.30,000/- for Ramesh's appearance during the trial. However, Ramesh has jumped bail and presently he is untraceable. Therefore, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 02.04.2009, has forfeited the entire amount of Rs.30,000/-. Hence, the present appeal under Section 449 Cr.P.C. 2 The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant happens to be a student and he does not belong to an affluent family. Since he was a tenant of Ramesh, he had submitted the surety. However, considering the financial difficulties of the appellant, the entire amount of Rs.30,000/- should not be forfeited. Relying on the case of Mohammed Kunju & Anr. V/s. State of Karnataka [AIR 2000 SC 6], the learned counsel has also contended that in a similar circumstance, the Apex Court had directed to merely impose a penalty of Rs.5,000/- on the surety. The said case of Mohammed Kunju (supra) has consistently been followed by this Court in the case of Ved Prakash V/s. State of Rajasthan [2008 WLC (UC) 786] and in the case of Vinod Kumar @ Anr. V/s. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Cr. Appeal No.1191/08, decided on 13th January, 200). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that it was the duty of the appellant to ensure that Ramesh does stand trial. Therefore, the learned trial Court is certainly justified in forfeiting the entire amount. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and the case law cited at the Bar. In the case of Mohammed Kunju (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has certainly held that instead of forfeiting the 3 entire amount, the appellant may be directed to pay a penalty of Rs.5,000/-. The said opinion has consistently been followed by this Court. Therefore, keeping in view, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court sets aside the order dated 02.04.2009 and the appellant is directed to pay a Rs.5,000/- as a penalty. Since the amount of Rs.30,000/- has already been deposited by the appellant, the learned trial Court is directed to refund a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant after deducting Rs.5,000/- as a penalty paid by the appellant from Rs.30,000/-. With these observations, this appeal is, hereby, allowed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.ASopa/-