S.C. Jain, J. - (1.) In this appeal these three appellants, Badre Alam, Sarfuddin and Shakil, who were facing trial before the VIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1993 (State v. Badre Alam and others ) have challenged the order dated 31.8.1994 passed by the VI Addl. Sessions Judge, whereby their bail bonds were ordered to be forfeited and non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against them.
(2.) Relying upon three decisions of this Court reported in 1993 U.P. Criminal Rulings page 417, 1989 U.P. Criminal Rulings page 272 and 1988 U.P. Criminal Rulings page 15, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the order passed by the VI Addl. Sessions Judge is wrong under the law. According to him the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants requested for exemption through him on the plea that appellants, Badre Alam and Sarfuddin were ill and one appellant, Shakil Ahmad has gone to Varanasi. According to him reasonable opportunity should have been given and that straightway the order of forfeiture of bonds and issue of non-bailable warrants should not have been passed, and the said order be set aside and if the record of the trial court is summoned the impugned order be suspended and till then these appellants be not arrested.
(3.) As far as the legal proposition is concerned, there is no dispute that accused who is on bail and has submitted personal bond and bail bond for his appearance on each and every date of hearing in this Court, is bound to appear on each and every date of hearing unless and until his exemption is allowed in respect of his personal appearance. In case of his breach of the bond the court concerned is legally competent to cancel the bail bonds and issue non-bailable warrant for arrest of the accused. The court concerned has the power to exempt the appearance of the accused person through his counsel if he is so satisfied for the reasons explained before him.;