MOHAMMED JUNAID Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application bearing Inward No. 800/2017 is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Cr. Appeal No. 2226/2017:

(2.) In the present case, the accused appellant has stood surety for accused Rustam @ TT.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that one Rustam @ TT was named as accused in case FIR No. 97/2011 registered at Police Station Harmada, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 411, 413 and 120-B IPC. Rustam @ TT was granted bail by the court and the petitioner stood surety for him. The petitioner had executed surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/-. Subsequently, Rustam @ TT jumped the bail and absconded. Therefore, the trial court forfeited bonds of the surety and saddle the petitioner with cost of Rs. 25,000/-, which was total amount of the surety.