Dalel Singh vs State of Haryana

K.P.S. Sandhu J. (Oral)

This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge Karnal, dated 23rd December, 1982, by which he forfeited the surety bond and called upon the appellant under section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000.

The Lets which give rise to this appeal are that one Tara Chand was an accused in a case F.I.R. No. 0104 dated 13th December, 1981. of Police Station, Barkatha, of Gorhar district of Bihar State under sections 307 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. This police station, as per the application submitted by the Karnal police before the District Magistrate; was situated in Bihar State Tara Chand aforesaid was arrested by the Karnal Police on the basis of the information received from Police Station. Barkatha, in the State of Bihar. He applied before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, for being released on bail to enable him to appear at Police Station Barktha. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 3rd February, 1982 passed the following order on the application submitted by him :

"........He is directed to surrender himself before the Ilaqa Magistrate of Police Station. Barkatha, District Gorhar, Bihar....."

The appellant, Dalel Singh, stood surety in the amount of Rs. 10,000/ and undertook that Tata Chand would appear before the Ilaqa Magistrate in charge of Police Station, Barkatha, District Gorhar, and that in case of his nonappearance he would be liable to pay Rs. 10,000/ to the State.

It appears that Tara Chand accused tried to locate this police station in District Gorhar but was unable to do to. He surrendered himself in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Patna, and moved an application before him wherein he stated that he had visited all the districts of Bihar but could not locate any police station by the name Barkatha Police Station. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application and directed him to appear in the concerned police station. Shri Satyendra Kumar Roy, an advocate of Patna, gave it telegram to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, intimating that Tara Chand. accused had appeared before the Sessions Judge, Patna, and brought to his notice that there was no such police station existing. However, from a letter written by the police of Police Station, Barkatha, to the Karnal police it became clear that this police station existed not in District Gorhar but in District Hazaribagh. The Karnal police moved the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, for the forfeiture of surety bond. Consequently the learned Additional Sessions Judge gave notice on 31st March, 1982, to the appellant to show cause why the surety bond be not forfeited. the appellant placed on record the application given by Tara Chand accused in the C~ of the Session Judge, Patna. and also the telegram written by Shri Satyendera Kumar Roy Advocate from Patna.

From all those facts and the letter written by the police of Police Station, Barkatha, it is evident that there is no police station by the name of Barkatha in Gorhar district. Apparently it was due to some mistake on the part of the police at Barkatha that this wrong address was given Tara Chand accused made all efforts to locate the police station and on his failure to do so he surrendered himself in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Patna, and brought all the facts to his notice According to the terms of the surety bond, the surety was responsible for the appearance of Tara Chand accused only in Police Station, Barkatha, District Gorhar, which in fact never existed. In this situation, I do not think any liability can b., fixed on the appellant. Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the State, has very fairly conceded that in such a situation the surety must be considered to have been absolved of his responsibility. Mr. V. K. Bali, learned counsel for the appellant, has placed reliance on State of Bihar v. Mr. M. Homi, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 478, wherein it has been held that the terms of the surety bond must be strictly interpreted and that the surety would only be'' liable if there is a breach or any term of the surety bond. Consequently I am of the view that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Karnal, forfeiting the surety bond cannot be sustained, Resultantly this appeal is allowed, and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, is set aside.