Balwant Vs. State of Haryana

Balwant vs State of Haryana

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Feb 12, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1127108

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1127108
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Feb 12, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Balwant

Respondent

State of Haryana

Excerpt

.....document crl. revision no.492 of 2014 (o&m) -2- both the sureties filed crm-m-16941-2012 and this court vide order dated 29.1.2013 reduced the amount of penalty to `2,000/- each. learned counsel for the petitioner has requested to put the petitioner at par with the sureties in the matter of payment of penalty. learned state counsel has submitted that the liability of the surety was secondary to the liability of the petitioner, as such, he cannot be treated at par with the sureties. the petitioner while being released on parole was aware that he had to surrender on a particular date. the plea taken by him that he was ill is not supported by any documentary evidence and there is nothing that he had ever intimated the jail authorities about his illness. he had never sought extension of his parole period on the ground of illness. in view of the above facts and circumstances, the liability of the petitioner is at higher pedestal than the sureties. however, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is certainly on the higher side. in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, i deem it appropriate to reduce the same to `10,000/- which the petitioner will deposit within two weeks. the instant petition is disposed of accordingly. february 12, 2014 (surinder gupta) deepak judge kumar deepak 2014.02.18 10:31 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.

Revision No.492 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision : February 12, 2014 Balwant ..Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA Present: Mr.Mohan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Dr.

Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana.

Surinder Guupta, J CRM-4829-2014 Heard.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, 28 days delay in filing the instant revision petition is condoned.

CM is allowed.

Main case: The petitioner who is undergoing sentence was allowed parole for six weeks on 27.4.2010 by the Superintendent Central Jail, Hisar under the orders of the District Magistrate, Fatehabad on furnishing personal bond and surety bonds in the sum of `2,00,000/-.

The petitioner had to surrender on 9.6.2010 but he committed default and surrendered on 20.6.2010.

The proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C were initiated against him and the District Magistrate, Fatehabad imposed penalty of `2,00,000/- on the petitioner.

In appeal against the order of District Magistrate, Fatehabad, Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, vide order dated 16.10.2013 reduced the penalty to `1,00,000/-.

In the instant revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.10.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Dr.

Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana, who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

Copy of the paper book supplied to him.

The proceedings against the sureties of the petitioner were initiated by the District Magistrate and they were also imposed penalty of `2,00,000/- each, which was reduced to `1,00,000/- by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad.

Kumar Deepak 2014.02.18 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl.

Revision No.492 of 2014 (O&M) -2- Both the sureties filed CRM-M-16941-2012 and this Court vide order dated 29.1.2013 reduced the amount of penalty to `2,000/- each.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has requested to put the petitioner at par with the sureties in the matter of payment of penalty.

Learned State counsel has submitted that the liability of the surety was secondary to the liability of the petitioner, as such, he cannot be treated at par with the sureties.

The petitioner while being released on parole was aware that he had to surrender on a particular date.

The plea taken by him that he was ill is not supported by any documentary evidence and there is nothing that he had ever intimated the Jail Authorities about his illness.

He had never sought extension of his parole period on the ground of illness.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the liability of the petitioner is at higher pedestal than the sureties.

However, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is certainly on the higher side.

In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, I deem it appropriate to reduce the same to `10,000/- which the petitioner will deposit within two weeks.

The instant petition is disposed of accordingly.

February 12, 2014 (Surinder Gupta) deepak Judge Kumar Deepak 2014.02.18 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 2014 Same Parties Balwant vs State of Haryana Same Subject Education