IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 111 of 2005 Shyam Prasad and another …….Revisionists. Versus State of Uttarakhand. …......….Respondent. Present: Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the Revisionists. Mr. Amit Kapri, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that one accused Ranjeet @ Raju was facing trial in the court of Magistrate at Haridwar for the offence punishable under Section 379, 511 IPC in case no. 388 of 2004. Revisionists Shyam Prasad and Jagdish Prasad had furnished sureties of Rs. 8000/- each and were instrumental in getting released accused Ranjeet on bail in the above said case. In the course of time, accused became absent, so notices were sent to the sureties/ revisionists. They apprised the court that accused is in Amritsar Jail. Process was sent to Amritsar Jail for procuring the attendance of accused but the same could not yield any result, even after being sent a number of times. The sureties / revisionists moved an application that accused be summoned through production warrant and copy of the same be also given to them. The trial court acceded with the prayer of sureties and gave a copy of production warrant issued under Section 267 Cr.P.C. to the sureties in order to facilitate their endeavour to secure the presence of accused person in the court but that too went in vain and no report was received from the Amritsar Jail in response to the production warrant, so sent by the Magistrate. Thereafter, the trial court sent recovery warrant of 2 Rs. 8,000/- to both the sureties. Feeling aggrieved, revisionists filed appeal no. 66 of 2004 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, who in turn, partly allowed the appeal and reduced the amount of surety to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- each from Rs. 8000/- each. Learned counsel for the revisionists has argued that Authorities of Amritsar Jail did not sent any reply to the effect that accused was not in their detention. This argument does not hold water because Amritsar Jail accommodates thousands of prisoners, even several prisoner may bear the same name as that of accused, so it was difficult for the Jail Authorities to detect the identity of a prisoner until and unless vivid particulars are not furnished at the hands of court sending production warrant. Revisionists / sureties did not make available to the court in what crime, offence or case accused Ranjeet was in captivation at Amritsar Jail. That apart, copy of production warrant was also handed over to the sureties at their own request but even then they failed to ensure the presence of accused. In view of what has been stated above, this revision is bereft of any merit and accordingly, is dismissed. However, taking into consideration that revisionists are poor persons, surety amount is further reduced to the extent of Rs. 3000/- each from Rs. 5000/- each. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 04.12.2012 SKS