K.M.Pandey, J. - (1.) This appeal under Section 449 Cr. P. C. has been filed against the order of Sessions Judge Sri Prakash Chandra Saxena, wherein objections filed by the appellants were rejected. Brief facts of the case are that the accused Shyama Charan was convicted for a period of three years by the Sessions Judge on 27-9-1980. He preferred an appeal against his conviction (Appeal No. 2460 of 1980 admitted on 3-11-1980) and during the pendency of the appeal he was granted bail by this court. However, the accused was granted interim bail after his conviction by the trial court and Kishori Shyam and Sanwal, two appellants had filed sureties for that period. In pursuance of the order dated 27-9-1980 when accused Shyama Charan failed to appear before the court, a show cause notice was issued as to why the amount of Rs. 3000/-, the amount of sureties be not realised from them. The appellants were served personally but they did not appear on 15-5-1982, which was the date for filing objections. The notices were confirmed and it was directed that the realisation warrants be issued against them, as a result of it the amount has been realised. Objections were filed by the sureties before the Sessions Judge against forfeiture that has been rejected and as such the present appeal has been filed.
(2.) It has been argued that it is a case wherein a lenient view may be taken because it was not a deliberate case wherein it can be said that the sureties had violated or avoided to comply with the court's order. The accused had not absconded and regular bail has also been granted. The appellants had appeared only as sureties for an interim period of one month. There is reason to accept the contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellants that it was not a case of deliberate mischief done by the appellants. Out of innocence or ignorance the accused did not appear before the trial court under an impression that bail has already been granted by the High Court. Moreover, the amount of penalty has already been paid by these appellants in pursuance of the notices issued to them by trial court. There is no dispute on this point. This also shows that the appellants did not contest the notice even when served on them and the entire amount was deposited. The accused Shyama Charan was being tried for an offence under Section 458 I.P.C. and in all likelihood there is nothing to show that he intended to abscond or jump bail. His absence before the court was also not for long time He did put in appearance soon after. Moreover, regular bail has already been granted.
(3.) Considering all these, I think the order regarding forfeiture of bond may be set aside and the amount realised as a result of forfeiture returned back to the appellants.;