AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners, through the medium of this petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seek quashment of orders dated 07.11.2024, passed in three contempt petitions, titled ‘Robkar V/S Mahad Joo’, ‘Robkar V/S Zoni’ and ‘Robkar V/S Habib Joo’, whereby, Sessions Court Poonch, has issued directions to respondent No.3-SDM Surankote to attach immovable property, measuring 5 marlas of each of the respondents and respondent No.2-SHO P/S Surankote to recover an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioners and, in case, the amount was not recovered, they be arrested and produced before the court.
The learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the factual background and grounds of challenge, has argued that the petitioners faced trial, in a case, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307/326/324/323/147/148 RPC and 3/25 Arms Act, arising out of FIR No. 147/2012, registered at P/S Surankote before the Session Court, Poonch, and that after a long trial of 11 years, the petitioners 1 and 2, as accused, were acquitted of the charge vide judgment dated 27.09.2024; that the petitioner no.3, at the time of grant of bail, had stood surety in the amount of Rs.50,000/- and petitioner had continuously attended the court proceedings till they got acquitted and vide paragraph 48 of the judgment, the trial court, ordered discharging the bail and personal bonds of the accused.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, further, argued that after discharge of the personal and bail bonds, there is no question of depositing the amount of surety/personal bonds and the impugned orders are nothing but a classic case of the abuse of process of law, and finally, it was prayed that the impugned orders dated 07.11.2024, passed in all the Robkars, be set aside.
The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that, under a misconception, the petitioners have filed this petition, that on the acquittal of the accused and discharging their personal and bail bonds as on date of judgment, the earlier proceedings initiated, against the petitioners, herein, either as accused or surety for the contravention of the bail/personal bonds get evaporated, whereas, the fact of the matter is that Robkars, initiated for contravention of the bail bonds, during the pendency of the case, were to be taken to a logical end by the trial court, as such, the orders passed by the court below do not suffer from any illegality, so as to be set aside, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court and prayed that the petition, being misconceived, be dismissed.
Heard, perused and considered.
On a perusal of the record received from the court below, the Robkars were framed against petitioners-Mahad Joo and Zoni vide order dated 29.12.2023 for having absented from the proceedings, as accused, in a case titled ‘State V. Mahad Joo & Ors’ contravened the condition of the personal bonds executed by them on 21.12.2012, in the amount of Rs.50,000/- each and the matter being not contested despite notice, the amount of bail bond was ordered to be forfeited in favour of the State directing the penalty to be recovered vide order dated 08.04.2024 and lastly, the order impugned was passed to seek enforcement of the recovery of the forfeited personal bonds.
Likewise, Robkar was initiated against petitioner-Habib Joo vide order dated 29.12.2023 for having contravened the conditions of the bail bond executed by him as surety to accused Mahad Joo, in the amount of Rs.50,000/-in case titled ‘State of J&K v. Mahad Joo & Ors’ on 22.08.2012.
The contempt Rules (Robkars) had been initiated against all the three petitioners, herein, vide order dated 29.12.2023, whereas the case titled ‘State v. Mahad Joo & Ors’ was decided on 27.09.2024, wherein bail and personal bonds were ordered to be discharged. The petitioners either as surety or accused were alleged to have contravened the conditions of the bail/personal bonds during the trial of the case and the Robkars were initiated against them in earlier point of time. They, despite issuance of repeated notices as is reflected from the record, had not come forward to contest the Robkars or even to file their replies and after the disposal of the main case, it appears that they laboured under a misconception that the Robkars initiated during the trial of the case are automatically finished with the disposal of the case. Legally, such a proposition is not permissible and the accused or the surety, who had executed bond for the appearance of the accused and their absenting from the proceedings during the trial of a criminal case, they are liable to be proceeded against. It was incumbent upon the petitioners herein to have either contested the contempt/Robkars before the court below or prayed before the court below to take a lenient view of the matter. They had not taken any step in this direction. The Robkars framed, during trial of the case, are not automatically finished with the disposal of the main case as these Robkars become independent cases and are to be taken to the logical end. The court below has rightly proceeded in the matter for recovery of the penalty on forfeiture of the bonds executed by the petitioners.
It is not out of place to mention that the petitioners have challenged the impugned orders with regard to the enforcement of the forfeiture orders earlier passed by the Trial Court. Thus, the petitioners have challenged and assailed consequential orders and not the foundational orders. Such a course is not legally permissible.
Viewed thus, this petition filed by the petitioners, found bereft of any merit and substance, is liable to be rejected. The petition is, thus, dismissed, and the impugned orders are upheld.
Before parting with this judgment, it is observed that, in case, the petitioners approach the court below with some sort of explanation, even at this stage, the same be considered by the court below before enforcing the recovery of the penalty imposed upon them.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed, along with connected application(s).
Interim direction, if any, shall stand revoked.