ANIL NARANG AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Seema Sirohi learned Counsel for the ap­pellants and A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) THIS is an appeal under section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `Code') against he proceedings drawn and concluded as per the provi­sions of section 446 of the Code. One of the accused Ajay Sethi in the Special Sessions Trial 4-A of 1990 was released on bail and Joginder Singh Narang stood surety for him. Later on, accused was declared absconder and bail bonds were forfeited. When the notice was sent to the said surety it was reported that he had died. An enquiry on being made it was dis­closed that the two sons of the surety were in possession of the estate left behind by the deceased. The description of the prop­erty, house No. 45/4 Khurbura Mohalla, Dehradun was also disclosed and Anil Narang and Yashpal Narang the two sons of the deceased surety being in possession of the estate of the deceased were sent show cause notice calling upon them to discharge the liability of the deceased surety tinder the bond. They did not put in appearance despite service of the no­tice whereby the learned Special Judge, Dehradun by the impugned order dated 8.1.2002 held these two sons liable to dis­charge the liability and to pay the amount of the surety bond i.e. Rs. 7,000/- and re­covery warrant were directed to be issued against both of them. Record reveal that both these legal heirs of the deceased surety deposited the amount of penalty/surety bond to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- on 5.3.2002 vide receipt Annexure-3 of the instant appeal.

(3.) FOR the reasons aforesaid, this ap­peal succeed and is hereby allowed. The order dated 8.1.2002 is set aside. Since the estate of the deceased surety Joginder Singh Narang stand discharged from all li­ability in respect of the bond, no amount of surety bond could have been realized from the appellants. The amount having been deposited by them, shall accordingly be refunded to them. Appeal Allowed.