CRLA No. 498 of 2007. Case: Dhaneswar Sahoo Vs State of Orissa. High Court of Orissa (India)
| Case Number | CRLA No. 498 of 2007 |
| Judges | S.K. Mishra, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 446, 446(2) |
| Citation | 2014 (II) ILR 392, 2014 (II) OLR 408 |
| Judgement Date | June 20, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Orissa (India) |
Order:
S.K. Mishra, J.
-
Heard Mr. Himansubhusan Dash, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, and Mr. Anupam Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.
-
This is an appeal against the order dated 27.4.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1/2006 directing each of the appellants-petitioners to pay Rs. 25,000/- only as penalty under Section 446 sub-clause (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code" for brevity).
-
The facts are not in dispute. The present appellants stood sureties for accused Sidheswar Mallik, who was charged under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, in S.T. Case No. 17/150 of 1995 of the Court of learned Addt. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. They executed bail bonds undertaking to produce the aforesaid accused, failing which they were to remit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the State. The case was posted to 02.08.2006 and on that date Sidheswar Mallik, was not present. Reminder was issued to the IIC Airfield P.S. to execute the N.B.W. and produce the accused. The bail bonds were forfeited on that date. Thereafter a separate Misc. Case bearing Crl. Misc. Case No. 1/2006 was initiated and notices were issued to the bailors-present appellants to show cause as to why the bail amount shall not be realized from them. After several adjournments, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar held that the petitioners have no cause to show and, therefore, directed that each of them is to pay Rs. 25,000/- as penalty under Section 446(2) of the Code and, accordingly, he issued distressed warrant for realization of the same.
-
It is borne out from the record that in the meantime, on 7.3.2007 the accused surrendered himself in S.T. Case No. 17/150 of 1995 and filed a petition for bail. His petition for bail was allowed on that day and he was order to be released on bail. On the next date i.e. on 8.3.2007 the accused furnished bail bonds, the same was accepted and he was released on bail.
-
Relying upon the reported cases of Manindra Kumar Majumdar v. Emperor, AIR (30) 1943 Calcutta 236 and Narata Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1994 Crl. LJ 491, learned counsel for the appellants submits that before forfeiting the bail bond the appellants should have been issued a notice to produce or to show cause why the accused did not remain present on date the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial