R.M. Chauhan, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA on the point of admission and perused the impugned order.
(2.) THIS appeal has been directed by accused Sudhir Kumar S/o Sri Kamta Prasad R/o village Kiratpur, P.S. Sindhauli, District Shahjahanpur under section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as "the Code") against the order dated 17th February 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, District Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 953 of 2003 (Sudhir Ku mar Verma v State), P.S. Sindhauli, District Shahjahanpur by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge while releasing the accused on bail has ordered him to deposit the amount of his personal bond by way of penalty as his personal bond had already been forfeited. The only legal point involved in this appeal is whether the amount of per sonal bond of the accused appellant can be realised from him after forfeiture of his personal bond without affording him any opportunity of hearing? The Trial Court's record is not needed for consideration of this legal point. The appeal is, therefore, being finally dis posed of at the admission stage with the consent of the learned Counsel for the par ties.
(3.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal is that the present ac cused appellant along with another accused was facing trial in Sessions Trial No. 953 of 2003 State v Sudhir under sections 323, 504, 506, 427 and 332 IPC and 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act, P.S. Sindhauli, District Shahjahanpur pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2, Shahajahanpur. THE accused were released on bail on their each executing personal bond of Rs. 15, 000/-with two sureties in the like amount. THE accused on 28th January 2009 were found absent when the case was called out for hearing while the P.W.4 Dr. Shree Ram was present in the Court. THE Counsel for the accused moved an application for their exemption from personal appearance on that date, which was allowed by the Court. However, the examination-in-chief of Dr. Shree Ram, P.W.4 was recorded by the Court on that date. THE case was adjourned for the next day i.e., 29th January 2009 for cross-examination of P.W.4, Dr. Shree Ram. On that date neither the accused nor their Counsel appeared before the Court, therefore, the Court ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrant against the accused and notice to the sureties. On the next date i.e. 12th February 2009 the bail bonds of the accused and sureties were forfeited. From a perusal of the impugned order it appears that the accused appellant appeared on 17th February 2009 before the trial Court and moved an application for releasing him on bail. The Trial Court found that the bail bond of the accused had already been.forfeited by the Court, there fore, the accused was liable to pay the amount of his personal bond by way of penalty. The Trial Court, allowed his application by the impugned order and ordered him to be released on bail on his executing personal bond of Rs. 15, 000/- with two sureties each in the like amount. However, the Trial Court imposed a condition that the accused will deposit the amount of his personal bond by way of penalty, which had already been forfeited.;