AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
CRM-32037 of 2026
Prayer in the present application preferred under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is to prepone the date of hearing in the present petition from 27.10.2026 to some early date.
Heard.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The date of hearing of the main appeal is preponed from 27.10.2026 to today itself.
CRM-M-70937 of2025.
The present petition assails order dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide which penalty of Rs.50,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner.
The facts, as emanating from the petition, are that FIR No. 266 dated 08.11.2022, under Section 379B IPC was registered on the basis of a secret information. The contents of the same are as under:-
"SHO Sahib, PS City SMS, Jai Hind, today, I ASI alongwith HC Ramditta Singh 424/SMS, Ct. Balraj Singh 543/SMS, PHQ Charanjit Singh 11425 were on private vehicle for routine checking and were going to Kotkapura road, Sri Muktsar Sahib, when police party reached near the octroi, Kotkapura road then a trusted source of ASI gave information that Jashandeep Singh son of Parminder Singh, R/o Bhangchari, Maninder Son of not known R/o Bhangchari and Shiva son of Ram Singh R/o Goniana Mandi, Bathinda are habitual of committing thefts and snatching in the crowded areas and at present they are looking for an opportunity of same. If they are nabbed at this point then theft articles could be recovered from them. Information is reliable, hence offence U/s 379B IPC is made out and ruqa against Parminder Singh, Ro Bhangchari, Maninder Son of not known R/o Bhangchari and Shiva son of Ram Singh R/o Goniana Mandi, Bathinda for registering an FIR against them is sent thru PHG Charanjit Singh. FIR be registered and FIR number be conveyed and PCR be informed."
One of the accused namely Shiva was granted bail by the trial Court and the present petitioner (Sahib Singh) stood surety for him and submitted surety bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. However, subsequently the said Shiva absented from the proceedings, as a result of which his bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued to procure his presence. Notice was also issued to the present petitioner but he did not appear. Accordingly, penalty of Rs.50,000/- was imposed upon him.
Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed.
I have head learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the penalty is very harsh and prays that a lenient view be taken in the matter.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, but find the same to be devoid of merit. The petitioner stood surety for one Shiva and had submitted surety bonds for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The said Shiva, however, absented from the proceedings, as a result of which his bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued. Eventually, he was declared a proclaimed offender. Upon notice having been issued to the petitioner who stood surety for the said Shiva, the petitioner did not appear. Under the circumstances, penalty of Rs.50,000/- was imposed upon him.
I do not find any illegality in the said order passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib warranting interference. Once the petitioner stood surety, he was responsible for the same. The petitioner, instead of appearing before the Court in response to the notice issued to him under Section 446 Cr.P.C., chose not to appear, and, therefore, the penalty was imposed.
The order does not call for any interference. The instant petition is accordingly dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.