IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.134 of 2001 (Old No.3302 of 1999) Rati Ram S/o Late Fakira, R/o Gandhi Gram New Basti, PS Kotwali, Dehradun … Appellant Versus The State … Opposite Party Dated: September 6, 2010 Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Additional G.A. for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This appeal, preferred u/s 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.], is directed against the order dated 20.11.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Misc. Case No.4 of 1999, State Vs. Rati Ram u/s 446 Cr.P.C. thereby directing the appellant to deposit the amount of surety within one month. The appellant stood as one of the sureties for an amount of Rs.25,000/- of the accused Mahendra @ Pappu who was facing trial u/s 397/395 IPC. Thereafter, when the accused became absent, on 23.7.1999 and 13.8.1999 notice u/s 446 Cr.P.C. was issued against the appellant which was also served upon him, but even when the appellant did not appear, thereafter on 2.9.99, 20.9.99, 7.10.99 and 28.10.99, recovery warrants were directed to be issued by the court below against him. On 20.11.99, the appellant Rati Ram appeared before the court and moved an application paper No.11B seeking therein two months’ time to deposit the surety amount. On that application, the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun vide order dated 20.11.1999 allowed one month’s time to the appellant to deposit the surety amount. Hence this appeal against the said order dated 20.11.1999. 2 In appeal, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide order dated 16.12.99 directed that the realization of fine from the appellant in pursuance of the impugned order of learned Sessions Judge shall remain stayed, provided the appellant deposits in the court below a sum of Rs.10,000/- by 15.1.2000 and in case of default, this stay order shall stand vacated automatically. In pursuance thereof, the appellant moved an application Paper No.15B/1 for depositing Rs.10,000/- and it was also stated in the application that the appellant is depositing Rs.10,000/- as per the orders of Hon’ble High Court. The said application was allowed on the same day vide order dated 15.1.2000 by the court below i.e. the order passed by the High Court of Allahabad dated 16.12.1999 stands complied with. Now, coming to the merits of the case, the appellant stood as one of the sureties of accused Mahendra @ Pappu and the amount of surety was Rs.25,000/-. The court below provided ample opportunities to the appellant to produce the accused before the court for which notice u/s 446 Cr.P.C. was also issued to him which too was sufficiently served upon him, but even when he did not appear, recovery warrant was issued against him on various dates and ultimately the appellant appeared before the court and moved an application Paper No.11-B dated 20.11.1999 seeking two months’ time to deposit the surety amount and on that application the court below granted one month’s time. Against that order, this appeal was preferred. As such, I find that the compliance of Section 446 Cr.P.C. is made by the court below and the order dated 20.11.1999 passed by the court below is justified. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant lastly argued that the appellant is a poor person, he is to look after his family also an he is now aged about 72 years and he is an sick and infirm persons and in view of this precarious position, he cannot pay the amount of Rs.25,000/-. It was further argued that the amount of surety may be remitted to Rs.10,000/- as already deposited by the appellant in compliance of the order passed by the High Court of Allahbad dated 16.12.99. 3 After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing learned counsel for the parties and also considering the financial status of the appellant and other family conditions, I partly allow the appeal with the direction that the order dated 20.11.1999 passed by the court below is affirmed. However, the surety amount of the appellant is reduced to Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/-. Needless to say that the amount of Rs.10,000/- has already been deposited by the appellant before the court below on 15.1.2000. (Dharam Veer, J.) September 6, 2010 Rajeev Dang