IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND ATNAINITAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.346 of 2008 1. Mohd. Yasin 2. Mohabbe Ali ……… Appellants Versus State of Uttaranchal ………… Respondent Dated: April 12, 2010 Sri G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for appellants Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 449 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kashipur in Misc. Crl. Case No.18/2008, State Vs. Yasin & others. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that the appellants-Yasin and Mohabbe Ali were the sureties of the accused Michael Masi in S.T. No.204/2004, State Vs. Michael Masi. Accused Michael Masi was granted bail by the trial court on 10.9.2008 and the present appellants filed surety bonds for Rs.40,000/ - each before the trial court. After being granted the bail, the accused became absent from the court on which the court below issued non-bailable warrant against him on 17.10.2008 and also issued notices to the sureties/ appellants and the next date was fixed for 4.11.2008 to produce the accused. On 4.11.2008, neither the accused nor the appellants appeared and on 5.11.2008, an application 2 was moved by the appellants seeking time to produce the accused on which the court below directed them to produce the accused by the next date i.e. 2.12.2008. On 2.12.2008 itself, another application was moved by the appellants for seeking further time to produce the court, on which the court below granted further three days’ time to produce the accused in failure of which the amount of surety i.e. Rs.40,000/ - was directed to be deposited and the next date fixed was 6.12.2008. However, even then the appellants could not produce the court and they sought further time to produce the accused on which the court below further granted eight days’ time to them fixing next date as 15.12.2008. After that another application was moved on behalf of the appellants seeking adjournment and further prayer to grant time to produce the accused. On 15.12.2008, neither the appellants nor the accused was produced before the court below. Accordingly, the court below came to the conclusion that even after granting several opportunities, the appellants are neither producing the accused nor they are depositing the surety amount, as such the court below rejected the application moved by the appellants and directed to issue recovery warrant along with non-bailable warrants with the observation that in case of non-payment of amount of recovery, they be arrested and produced in the court. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come up before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the court below has erred in passing the impugned order dated 15.12.2008. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that the court below vide orders dated 17.10.2008, 5.11.2008, 2.12.2008 and 6.12.2008 granted time to the appellants to produce the accused in the court, 3 however they failed to do so. Ultimately on 15.12.2008, having left with no option, the court below proceeded to pass the impugned order directing to issue recoverable warrant with non-bailable warrant against the appellants in case of non-depositing of the surety amount. Even the appellants were not present before the court below on the date of passing of the impugned order. On a careful perusal of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the court while passing the impugned order and I am of the considered view that the impugned order is correct and justified as per law. For the reasons as above recorded, the appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 8.4.2009 stands vacated. Rajeev Dang (Dharam Veer, J.) April 12, 2010