Sadhuram vs State of U.P.

J. C. Gupta, J.—Heard appellant''s Counsel and the learned A.G.A.

It is submitted that office has wrongly reported appeal to be barred by time. It appears that when coaccused Munna Singh Pattidar alias Balbir Singh did not appear in the trial Court, the Court called upon his sureties to produce him. Notice was also alleged to have been served upon the appellant and by the order dated 5122000 the trial Court directedoffice to issue warrant of recovery of bond amount. It further appears that thereafter the appellant appeared before the trial Court and filed objections stating therein that he had never stood surety for the aforesaid accused and had not furnished the bail bond and accordingly he moved an application for recalling the recovery warrant, whereupon the learned Magistrate without staying recovery proceedings directed the appellant to produce evidence in support of his case that he never stood surety in the present case for the absconding accused. The appellant thus apprehends that recovery may be made from him though he had never stood surety for the accused. It was further pointed out that recovery certificate has been issued without there being any order of forfeiture of the surety bond.

In the cii cumstances, this appeal is allowed and theorder directing recovery of the bail bond amount of the appellant is set aside and the trial Court is directed to give appellant an opportunity to show cause why bail bond be not forfeited and penally recovered. Since as per the appellant''s case he has not stood surety in the present case, the trial Court shall make an enquiry into this assertion of the appellant before passing any order regarding forfeiture of the bond or of penalty.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.