RAJPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has been filed against the orders dated 20.12.2007, 8.4.2008 and 8.7.2008 passed by the learned Addi ­tional Sessions Judge, Xllth/Fast Track Court No. 3, Mathura in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2008 (State v. Rajpal and another).

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the accused appel ­lants had stood sureties for the accused Maluka in ST. No. 180 of 2005 (State v. Maluka) pending before the above Court. The accused Maluka had absented and a report was received that he had been absconding. Notices were issued to the appellant sureties to produce the accused Maluka. These notices were person ­ally served upon the appellants but they did not appear. Hence an order was passed on 20.12.07 for forfeiting the amount of bail bond and for issuing notices to the sureties under Section 446, Cr.P.C. to show cause as to why the amount of 50, 000/ - should not be realised on them. The appellants did not appear in spite of service of this notice also. Hence an order was passed on 8.4.2008 for issuing warrant of recovery of the amount of surety bond which was of Rs. 50, 000/ - each against the appellants. Thereafter the appellants apoeared in the Court and moved an application. A copy of this application has been filed as Annexure 1 of the affidavit filed in the appeal in which it was stated that they were producing the accused Maluka before the Court and he should be taken into custody. On this application, the Court passed an order on 24.6.08 for taking accused into cus ­tody and sending him to jail. He further ordered to put up the case on the date fixed for orders. The date 8.7.08 was fixed in the case. On that date an order was passed that the recovery warrant had not been received back after recovery, and so a letter be written to the SSP for recovery of the bail amount from the sureties. Aggrieved with that order the sureties have filed this appeal.

(3.) IT is to be seen that when the accused had not appeared, the amount of the surety bond was liable to be forfeited from the appellants and the Trial Court did not commit any illegality by passing an order on 20.12.07 for forfeiting the amount of bail bond. He also passed an order for issuing a notice to the sureties under Section 446, Cr.P.C. to show cause as to why the amount of bail bond should not be recovered from them. This notice was served upon the sureties as is apparent from the order dated 8.4.08 but they did not appear. Hence the Court rightly passed an order for issuing recovery warrant to recover the amount of bail bond from the appellants. However, thereafter the appellants appeared before the Court and produced the accused Maluka before the Court and the accused was taken into custody on 24.6.2008. The Court also passed an order for putting up the case on the next date i.e. 8.7.2008. On that date the sureties did not appear in the Court and since the recovery warrant had not been received back, the Court passed an order for issuing fresh recovery warrant. It is now to be seen that the appellants had produced the accused Maluka before the Court. Hence they should have filed an objection as provided under para -3 of Section 446, Cr.P.C., but they did not file any such objection.