Crl. Misc. No. M-29950 of 2009 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * Crl. Misc. No. M-29950 of 2009 Date of decision : October 26, 2009 * * * * * Mohinder Singh ............Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...........Respondent * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. J.S Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * * * JORA SINGH, J. Mohinder Singh filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by Additional District magistrate, Bathinda and the order dated 25.8.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by Additional Sessions Judge( Fast Track Court), Bathinda. State case was registered against Mohinder Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh. Mohinder Singh was convicted and sentenced and was ordered to be released on parole for a period of 4 weeks subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with a direction Crl. Misc. No. M-29950 of 2009 :2: to surrender after the expiry of period of parole before the jail Superintendent, Bathinda. Mohinder Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh had furnished surety bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and was released on parole. But, as per order, Mohinder Singh failed to surrender before the Jail Superintendent, Bathinda after the expiry of parole period. Notice was issued to the surety to explain as to why Mohinder Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh failed to surrender before the Jail Superintendent, Bathinda after the expiry of the parole period. After hearing learned counsel for the surety, surety was directed to pay a penalty of Rs.10,000/-. Against order of Additional District Magistrate, Bathinda dated 22.10.2008, appeal was preferred but vide the impugned order dated 25.8.2009, passed by Additional Sessions Judge ( Fast Track Court ), Bathnda, appeal was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that order of Additional District Magistrate dated 22.10.2008 and order dated 25.8.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Bathinda are liable to be set aside because notice was not issued to the convict to explain why he failed to surrender after the expiry of the period of parole. I have gone through the file but submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any force. State case was registered against Mohinder Singh son of Mukhtiar Singh and he was convicted and sentenced. Mohinder Singh son of Mukhtira Singh was ordered to be released on parole Crl. Misc. No. M-29950 of 2009 :3: for a period of 4 weeks subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/-. Mohinder Singh son of Jugraj singh had furnished surety bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with an undertaking that the convict shall surrender before the jail Superintendent, Bathinda after the expiry of period of parole. But convict failed to surrender before the Jail Superintendent, Bathinda as per order. Notice was issued to the surety to explain why convict failed to surrender after the expiry of the parole period. No explanation form the side of the petitioner that order of Additional District Magistrate, Bathinda or the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, (Fast Tract Court) Bathinda is not legal one. Convict was ordered to be released on parole for a period of four weeks. Petitioner had furnished surety bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with an undertaking that after the expiry of parole period convict will surrender before the Jail Superintendent but no explanation as to why convict failed to surrender before the Jail Superintendent after the expiry of the parole period. Learned counsel for the petitioner simply argued that opportunity was not given to the convict to explain as to why he failed to appear after the expiry of the parole period. But there is no provision that before giving direction to the surety to pay penalty, explanation of the convict is to be called for. Once the convict is ordered to be released on parole and in case after the expiry of the period of parole, convict fails to surrender before the jail authorities then after issuing notice to the convict, convict can be directed to pay penalty. Similarly when the convict fails to surrender before the jail Crl. Misc. No. M-29950 of 2009 :4: Superintendent after the expiry of parole period then after notice to the surety, surety can be directed to pay penalty if there is no reasonable explanation. If no action is taken against the surety, then every convict after being released on parole will surrender after long gap of time. In case convict had some difficulty then there was a procedure for extension of time. Convict can approach the Court for extension of time but no request was made to the Court. Without making any request convict did not surrender before the Jail Superintendent after the expiry of period of parole. By imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/- out Rs.50,000/-, learned Additional District judge has already taken lenient view. When the convict failed to surrender after the expiry of parole period without any explanation, then I am of the opinion that impugned order was rightly passed, particularly, when no explanation from the side of the petitioner as to what was the difficulty with the convict not to surrender after the expiry of the parole period. Petition without merit is dismissed. October 26, 2009 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE