VIRENDRA VIKRAM SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) THE sureties of accused Bhookan facing trial for offence under Sections 307, 436 I.P.C. in S.T. No.170 of 1977 have preferred this appeal under the provision of Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and have challenged the order passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad dated 18.2.1981 whereby the appellants, who stood sureties for accused Bhookan were ordered to be realized Rs.4,000/ - each as the surety amount they agreed to pay in default of the presence of the accused in Court. The brief facts are that the accused Bhookan was facing trial for offence under Sections 307, 436 I.P.C. in S.T. No.170 of 1977, P.S. Katighar, District Moradabad. During course of trial, charge was framed against him and the trial proceeded. During course of trial on 18.6.1977, the accused Bhookan was found absent and non -bailable warrants were issued against him alongwith the notice to the sureties. The accused appeared on 20.6.1977 and moved application for his release. This application was allowed in terms that the accused was permitted to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.4,000/ - and two sureties each in the like amount. The appellants before the Court moved an application on 22.6.1977 that they are ready for their sureties for Bhookan and furnished the bail bonds. The Court accepted the bail bonds which were taken on record. After this date, the accused Bhookan for whom the appellants stood sureties, again absented from the Court on 17.8.1977. On this date, the Court forfeited the surety bonds and issued notice to the sureties. In pursuance to this notice, the present appellants appeared before the Court and initially they took a plea that they could not appear a surety but later on they moved an application that they have signed the surety bonds. The accused Bhookan remained absent and the court below on 18.9.1981 by passing the impugned order, ordered the present appellants to pay Rs.4,000/ - each as surety amount. This order is under challenge.
(3.) THE perusal of the file shows that the appellants took all the time to delay the proceedings. Initially the service was avoided and later on they come up before the Court with the plea that they did not put in their signatures over the bond. However, they admitted to be sureties later on.;