1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.2253-SB of 2008 Date of Decision: 25.11.2008 *** Jee Ram .. Appellant Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Yaspal, Advcoate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG Haryana *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Notice of motion to respondent No.1-State. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG accepts notice on behalf of the State. The appellant stood surety for respondent No.2 Mandeep Singh, an accused in case FIR No. 95 dated 22.3.2007, under Sections 323, 324, 427, 452, 506 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station City Jagadhari, and furnished a surety bond for an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Since Mandeep Singh did not attend the proceedings before the Court below on 22.9.2008, his bail bond and surety bond were cancelled and forfeited. The appellant, being the surety was also served with a notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C. and accordingly vide order dated 16.10.2008 a fine of Rs.20,000/-, the amount which he undertook to deposit in case of failure to attend the Court by the accused, while appearing as surety of the accused was imposed. Recovery proceedings are also stated to have been initiated by dint of the impugned order. Hence the instant appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant has confined his prayer to the extent that the amount of fine, as imposed, be reduced keeping in view the 2 poor status of the appellant, who is a labourer earning hand to mouth. Heard. There is nothing on record which is suggestive of the fact that the appellant had any remote scent that the accused is preparing to escape from the trial or he had connived with the accused jumping out the bail. No doubt there is breach of undertaking given by him while executing surety bond, on the part of the appellant and further he never furnished any explanation regarding non-appearance of respondent No.2 before the Court below, but keeping in view the antecedents of the appellant, the instant petition is disposed of with the modification that the penalty imposed upon the appellant is reduced to Rs.10000/-. However, in case of failure on the part of the appellant to deposit the fine amount, within one month, the instant appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed, without there being any effect on the recovery proceedings of the original amount of Rs.20,000/- initiated against the appellant. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE November 25,2008 Jiten