IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ATNAINITAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.187 of 2002 Swami Dayal S/o Mangal Ram and another ……… Appellants Versus State of Uttaranchal ………… Respondent Dated: December 15, 2008 Sri K.S. Verma, learned counsel for appellant Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 449 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the order dated 12.07.2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI)/Anti- Corruption, Uttaranchal, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No.35/2000. I have heard Sri K.S. Verma, Advocate for the appellants and Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State and perused the entire material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that the appellants- Swami Dayal and Ram Sukh were the sureties of the accused Jamil Ahmed in Criminal Appeal No.35/2000, Jamil Ahmed Vs. State. Accused Jamil was convicted by IIIrd Addl. CJM, Dehradun vide his judgment and order dated 19.5.2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380/511 of The Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC). Against the said order, accused Jamil Ahmed filed an appeal before the court of Sessions Judge, Dehradun. The appeal was transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI), Anti-Corruption, Uttaranchal Dehradun for disposal according to law. Accused Jamil Ahmed was released on bail by the order of I/c Sessions Judge, Dehradun vide order dated 21.6.2000 on the two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each. Appellants-Swami Dayal and Ram Sukh became the sureties and accordingly they furnished the surety bonds. On the basis of the surety bonds furnished by the appellants, accused Jamil was released from jail. However, after that accused Jamil did not appear before the court and non-bailable warrant was issued against him and even the proceedings u/s 82/83 of Cr.P.C. was issued against him, where the court has received the report that accused Jamil had gone somewhere after selling his moveable and immovable property. Thereafter, appellant no.1-Swami Dayal moved an application before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun stating therein that he is a poor man and he also tried to search the accused Jamil at various places but he could not succeed in doing so. Hence, he prayed that the amount of surety bonds may be remitted. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CBI)/Anti-Corruption, Uttaranchal, Dehradun vide her order dated 12.7.2002 has remitted the penalty amount and imposed Rs.8,000/- against the appellant no.1-Swami Dayal. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 12.7.2002, the present appeal has been filed. Sri K.S. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that both the appellants are a very poor persons and even they are simply labourers and as per their financial status, it is not possible for them to pay the entire penalty amount and he prayed that the amount of penalty may be reduced to Rs.5,000/- against each of the appellants. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and particularly financial status of the appellants, I think it would be in the interest of justice to allow the prayer made by the appellants. As such, the penalty amount is hereby remitted to the tune of Rs.5,000/- against each of the appellants. The appeal stands partly allowed and the order dated 12.7.2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (CBI)/Anti- Corruption, Uttaranchal, Dehradun, stands modified accordingly. Interim order dated 1.8.2002 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) December 15, 2008 Rajeev Dang