IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 2010 1. Nazim Raza Khan S/o Hamid Raza Khan R/o Village Tilla, P.S. Kunda Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. Samshad, S/o Kadam R/o Mohalla Kazibagh P.S. Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar. …………..…Appellants. Versus State of Uttarakhand ……….Respondent. Shri J.S. Virk, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal, is directed against the order dated 20.02.2010, relating to recovery of the sum mentioned in the surety bonds, passed by Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2000, State Vs. Sher Mohammad and another, relating to offences punishable under Sections 302/506/120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.), P.S. Kashipur, which was decided on 19.02.2003. 3. Brief facts of the case are that one of the accused namely Akbar was convicted in the 2 aforesaid Sessions Trial, by the trial court, vide its judgment and order dated 19.02.2003. He filed criminal appeal No. 75 of 2003, before this Court, which was dismissed, vide judgment and order dated 14.10.2009 along with criminal appeal No. 77 of 2003, Shameen Vs. State. The present appellants namely Nazim Raza Khan and Samshad, stood sureties for convict-Akbar, for bail, during the pendency of the appeal. It is argued on behalf of the present appellants that since by the order dated 14.10.2009, this Court has cancelled the bail bonds and sureties have been directed to be discharged, as such, the trial court has committed error of law by directing the sureties to deposit the amount, mentioned in the surety bond. 4. The argument, advanced on behalf of the present appellants- Nazim Raza Khan and Samshad, who were sureties of the convict-Akbar, is misconceived. Learned Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 20.02.2010, directed the sureties (present appellants) to produce the convict- Akbar by the next date fixed, and in default, they are directed to make payment of the amount, mentioned in the bail bond. Said order is perfectly in consonance with the order dated 14.10.2009, passed by this Court in criminal appeal No. 75 of 2003. The order of cancellation of bail bond cannot be read separately from the order that the convicts be taken into custody. The Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 3 14.10.2009, while dismissing the appeal of the appellant-Akbar, has cancelled the bail bonds and directed that the sureties shall be discharged, but simultaneously it is directed that convict/appellant shall be taken into custody. As such, learned Sessions Judge, has committed no error of law in passing the impugned order. For the reasons, as discussed above, this appeal is summarily dismissed. Dt:08.04.2010 Sweta (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 4