JAGDISH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jagdish and Harpal, appellants stood sureties for accused. Vikram, who has been facing trial in Session Trial No. 69 of 1988, State Vs. Sanawwar and others under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, Indian Penal Code and executed bond for a sum of Rs. 5000.00 each. Vikram, accused did not make appearance before the court on the date fixed and absconded and as such show cause notices were issuede to the sureties vide order dated 23.8.1994 as to why their bail bonds be not forfeited. Later on their bail bonds were forfeited and it was ordered that the amount be realised from them by sale of their movable property. That order was challenged by the appellants by filing revision before this Court, which was remarked back with a direction that the Additional Sessions Judge shall verify whether Vikram, accused, has died as alleged by these sureties. The Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor sent his report dated 30.11.1994 and as per his report Vikram, accused, for whom these appellants stood sureties had died and dead body was recovered on 24.10.1994 from the jungle of village Dhaki. It has been pointed out that surety bonds were forfeited on 18.10.1994 and the dead body of Vikram was found on 24.10.1994 i.e. after forfeiture of the bail bonds. The question arises whether on 18.10.1994 accused, Vikram, was already dead though his dead body was found on 24.10.1994. According to the learned counsel for the appellants he was missing before the date the forfeiture order was passed, though his dead body was recovered on 24.10.1994 in the jungle of Dhaki.

(2.) From the record it is apparent that after issue of show cause notice dated 23.8.1994 time was granted to the sureties either to produce the accused or to show his whereabouts. An application was moved on behalf of the sureties that they had come to know that the accused was killed in Pauri's riots and they had applied for two months further time to find out the correct position. Time was granted on 17.10.1994 and the application was fixed for disposal but no body made appearance on behalf of the sureties.

(3.) Whatever may be the position, the appellants took trouble in finding out the whereabout of accused Vikram and ultimately it was found that his dead body was recovered on 24.10.1994. In such circumstances, I set aside the impugned order dated 18.10.1994 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Misc. Case No. 20 of 1994 under Sec. 446, Criminal Procedure Code and the recovery proceedings, if started against the appellants, Jagdish and Harpal, are ordered to be quashed. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Appeal Allowed.