IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 2002 Umraw Singh and others …….. Appellants Versus State ……… Respondent Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for the respondent. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23/10/2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar in Misc. Case No.2 of 2002 whereby the learned Sessions Judge passed order for sale by auction of the properties of the sureties namely Umrao Singh & Dalip Singh (present appellant Nos. 1 & 2 respectively) and accused/appellant No.3 Sanjay Singh and directed to deposit the said amount in the court. 3. Brief facts as transpired from the record are that a joint trial of Umraw Singh appellant No.1 and Sanjay Singh @ Sanju appellant No.3 were proceeding before the Sessions Judge. The case was fixed in the month of July, 2002. Sanjay Singh-accused/appellant No.3 did not appear before the Court and the court issued non-bailable warrants and process u/s 82/83 Cr.P.C. against accused/appellant Sanjay Singh. Notices were issued to the sureties on 04/09/2002. The sureties filed their reply and the learned Sessions Judge was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the sureties as well as by the appellant No. 3 Sanjay Singh and directed to be recovered the amount as indicated in the surety bonds and personal bond respectively. Later on the Sureties on 16/10/2002 brought the appellant No.3-Sanjay Singh before the Court and the appellant Sanjay Singh also filed application for surrender before the Court. He was taken into custody. The sureties could not produce the appellant Sanjay Singh before the court for a period of three months and they have committed the default as undertaken in the bonds. The appellant Sanjay Singh was tried by the learned Sessions Judge and he was acquitted on 23/10/2002 by the Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the sureties made their endeavour to produce the appellant Sanjay Singh and they succeeded in their efforts. Ultimately, the appellant Sanjay Singh remained in jail after his surrender during the trial. The learned counsel for the appellants neither disputed the legal proposition of law nor the factual aspect of the case. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the sureties could not produce the appellant Sanjay Singh before the court for three months but after three months the appellant Sanjay Singh appeared before the court and surrendered himself. Later on, the appellant Sanjay Singh was acquitted by the court. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the amount of Rs.10,000/- each to be reduced as a nominal one. The learned counsel only submits that a lenient view may be taken into consideration considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. In view of the above, the appellants are directed to deposit Rs.1000/- each before the trial court within a period of two months. 6. The appeal is allowed in part. However, it is made clear that the order passed in this case may not be treated as precedent for the other cases. 7. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned for compliance. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 12.06.2008 Shiv