JAKIR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 30-8-1990, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered for the forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 1000/-from his personal bond and remitted the remaining amount. He however, did not order for the refund of the amount which was recovered from the surety.

(2.) ACCUSED Jakir Hussain was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur, for offences under Sections 354 and 376/511 I. P. C. During the trial, Jakir Hussain was granted bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 5000/- and a surety in the like amount. Jakir Hussian furnished the personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/ and Kalu, who stood surety for the personal attendance of Jakir Hussain, submitted the surety bond for a sum of Rs. 5000/. During the trial, accused Jakir Hussain remained absent and for his non-appearance, his bail bond and personal bond were ordered to be forfeited and the proceedings for the recovery of the amount were initiated. The surety could not produce the accused Jakir Hussain and, therefore, a notice was issued to him to show cause as to why the whole amount of the bail bonds may not be recovered from him. The reply furnished by Kalu could not satisfy the Court below and, therefore, the Court ordered for the forfeiture of the whole amount of Rs. 5000/ of the bail bond and was recovered from the surety Kalu. Thereafter, accused Jakir Hussain appeared in the Court and faced the trial. He, also, filed a reply for his non-appearance under Section 446 (3) Cr. P. C. and the learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering the reply, submitted by accused Jakir Hussain, by his order dated August 30, 1990, ordered for the forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 1000/- only of the personal bond. The surety Kalu, also, moved an application under section 446, (3) Cr. P. C. for remitting the amount of the forfeited surety bond which was recovered from him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application of Kalu on the ground that as the amount has already been recovered and there is no provision for returning the same and, therefore, the order for refund of the amount of the surety bond cannot be passed. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by Jakir Hussain and Kalu.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal filed by the appellants has got to farce and is hereby dismissed. .