- (1.) UMESHWAR Pandey, J. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) THIS is an appeal under Section 449 Cr PC. directed against the order dated 8-2-2005 whereby the Court below has ordered the appellant to make payment of the bond money within two months in the Court. The appellant stood surely to the accused Rajendra in a Special Trial under N. D. P. S. Act. The accused absented on 20-1-2005 and the Court passed orders forfeiting his surety bond and directing to issue notice to the appellant-surety fixing 8-2-2005. After receipt of the said notice the appellant on 5-2-2005, three days before the date fixed for his show-cause, brought the accused Rajendra before the Court and got him surrendered. The Court passed orders and on 5-2-2005 directing preparation of warrant under Section 309 Cr. P. C. the accused was forwarded to jail in judicial custody. The learned Counsel contends that since the appellant in pursuance to the show-cause notice sent to him under Section 446 Cr. P. C. got the accused surrendered before the Court before the date fixed by it, there does not arise any occasion, of legal justification for the Court below to direct the appellant to make payment of the bond money The appellant has even before the expiry of the respite period has complied to the legal requirements of producing of the accused before the Court and in such circumstances he should not be penalized for the payment of the contractual money to the State under the bond. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite evident that the appellant after service of show-cause notice upon, him has very swiftly acted with maximum swiftly in the matter. He got the accused surrendered before the Court on 5-2-2005 itself. There is no legal necessity to actually impose the penalty upon the surety-appellant and to direct him to make payment of the bond money In fact, the intention of the show-cause notice as envisaged under Section 446 Cr. P. C. is that an opportunity, provided to the surely to explain before the Court as to under what circumstances he failed to bring the accused on the date fixed and if such surety in pursuance to the said notice makes a positive compliance of production of the accused before the Court even before the date fixed in the case, there should not be any occasion for the Court to impose penalty of the bond money. As such, the Court below while passing the impugned order has materially erred in law and the order cannot sustain. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 8-2-2005 is hereby set aside. Appeal allowed. .;