Umeshwar Pandey, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned A.G.A.
(2.) In this appeal under Section 449 Cr.P.C. the order dated 15.4.2005 of the court below has been challenged.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the accused Dhan Kumar, for whom the appellants had stood sureties for his appearance before the trial court in S.T. No. 320 of 1996, had absented on 20.9.1996. Consequently, the processes of warrant of arrest against the accused and show cause notices against the appellant-sureties were issued after the forfeiture of the surety bonds. In pursuance to the notices the appellants appeared on 29.10.1996 and had sought time for producing the accused. The learned counsel submits that much before the aforesaid date, i.e. 20.9.1996, the accused Dhan Kumar had already been kidnapped, of which the appellants had no notice. As such they had moved the application for grant of time to produce the accused in the court. The accused Dhan Kumar had been kidnapped by three persons on 30 12.1995, of which incident the F.I.R. was lodged by Dhan Kumar's brother on 20.10.1996. Certified copy of the said F.I.R. has been filed as Annexure-1.;