IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-28300 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: September 16, 2011 Gurender Singh @ Kuku & another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Jainainder Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Challenge in this petition is to order dated 23.8.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by District Magistrate, Hisar, vide which the surety amount of ` 2 lac each in relation the petitioners has been forfeited to the State in view of violation of the order of parole. 2. Notice of motion. 3. On the asking of the Court, Mr. B.S. Saini, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice. Complete copy of the petition has been given to him. Crl. Misc. No. M-28300 of 2011 [2] 4. On the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the case is taken up for final hearing today itself. 5. Jitender @ Happy son of the petitioners was a prisoner and lodged in District Jail, Bhiwani. He was granted parole for four weeks for house repair by the Commissioner, Hisar Division vide order dated 31.10.2008. On 24.2.2009, the petitioners furnished surety bonds of ` 2 lac each for release of the prisoner on parole. On the basis of surety bonds, the prisoner was released on 25.2.2009 for four weeks. The prisoner was required to surrender on 26.3.2009. 6. Admittedly, the prisoner did not surrender and therefore violated the order. Notice was issued to the sureties viz. petitioners. Personal hearing was provided. 7. During arguments in this petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has not drawn attention of the Court towards any violation of mandatory provisions regarding the procedure that has caused manifest injustice. All that has been stated is that the petitioners are poor farmers and therefore, shall not be able to bear the burden of surety. 8. The petitioners stood surety for Jitender @ Happy and were required to ensure that the said person surrenders in time. The prisoner is none other but the son of the petitioners. In these circumstances, I find no legal reason to quash the impugned Crl. Misc. No. M-28300 of 2011 [3] order. 9. Be that as it may, considering the financial condition of the petitioners, taking into account the humanitarian aspect, the amount is reduced to ` 1 lac each. 10. The petition is dismissed with the modification in the order that surety amount to the tune of ` 1 lac each shall be recoverable from the petitioners. (AJAI LAMBA) September 16, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?