RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30 12 99 passed by the Court below forfeiting the bail bonds of the surety and directing the appellants to deposit the amount of surety, the appellants have filed this criminal appeal under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(2.) Sans unnecessary details, the facts lie in narrow compass. One Dheer Singh was the surety of accused-Ram Singh On 25 9-99 the accused who was on bail, did not appear in the Court and as such the bail bonds were forfeited The Court found that the surety had died on 31-7-98. However, by the impugned order, the Court below has directed the appellants, who are the heirs of the surety, to deposit the surety amount of Rs 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand). Hence this appeal.

(3.) Shri Mayank Vajpayee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants by inviting my attention to sub-section (4) of Section 446 of Cr P C has submitted that in case the surety dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate shall be discharged from all liability in respect to bond and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Court below erred in law by passing the impugned order directing the appellants to deposit the surety amount.