Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 493 of 2008 Appellant :- Tilak Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Although appeal is listed under the head of "For Orders" but on the request of learned counsel for the appellant the case is being decided finally.
Present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/surety under Section 449 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 17.1.2008 passed in proceedings under Section 446 Cr.PC. by the court below whereby amount of bond was ordered to be deposited by the appellant without passing an order of forfeiture of the bond in favour of the State.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the court below is illegal. Impugned order itself speaks that appellant produced the accused before the concerned police. Thereafter he was arrested and taken into custody. Till that date no order for forfeiture of the surety amount was passed by the court below. Thus the order dated 17.1.2008 directing the appellant to deposit the amount of surety bond before the Court concerned is illegal. At this juncture learned counsel for the appellant referred to provisions of Section 446 Cr.P.C. also.
Learned A.G.A. argued that since accused appellant was the surety of the accused Bhopal in S.T. No. 1073 of 2000 pending before the court below. Accused was absconding. Notice was also issued to the appellant but he could not produce the accused. Therefore, order passed by the Court below directing the appellant to deposit the amount of surety bond is in accordance with law.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, accused appellant was arrested on 14.1.2008 itself and the impugned order was passed on 17.1.2008 and till then amount of surety bond was not forfeited in favour of the State. If the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are analysed in consonance with the findings/observations recorded by the Court below in the impugned order, I am of the considered view that Trial Court without going through the provisions of Section 446 Cr.P.C. has passed the impugned order. Since amount of surety bond was not forfeited, therefore, order for depositing the same could not be passed.
Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, appeal having merit is liable to be allowed. Impugned order dated 17.1.2008 is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 17.1.2008 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Meerut in S.T. No. 1073 of 2000 (State Vs. Bhopal), under Section 302/201 IPC and Section 3 (2) V SC/ST Act, Police Station T. P. Nagar, district Meerut is set aside.
Order Date :- 18.12.2018 Sachdeva