1\, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. ^4'-? / 2005 AppeUant (Surely) _^ ^^^ ^^'v Respondent \ K. •'-' M^ (.. - Versus Nobru S/o Bagar Sai Gond, Aged about 55 years, R/o Katkona, P.S. Lakhanpur, Dist: Surguja-fC.G.) State of Chhattisgarh 'l.i ,.'; tNAL APPEAL U/S 449 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINALPROCEDURE i.'sffs ©i'g^^iS XI-HC-78 3:n^?r ?ir l^iN? gwsnwstiii'h '" •:'s~p~'wSS 3^ '<ll<ilC1<l, »T(1*)'I6,jslcflti^ ..&;t-.^.s/. s Sil^<|Macb \ ?RITOCflfN'3f1^T +l<lt<'f<fl-) IIMftTfffe^ <Rf^R ^iSrf^lTSn^T coun6e 4-4-2005 Mr. Rahul Mishra, Mr.SudhirAgrawal, Nohru, who steod si Sessions Trial No.354/2004, the Code <rf Criminal Procedilire, passed by the 1 Adc(ttonal No.13/20(®,whereby ttie ies| the whoie surety amount as faited to appear before the Acqiitiona sufficient cause with .c."'4-e-^ non-appearance inspite/ofno pe|iMi 1 have heard learned c^ counsel for ifte parUes ttis stegeitseif. Leamed counset for tKs himself appeared wtthin a released on bail, and on the the appellant he could not a( forfeit'ng the.surety amount could not appear on 22-2-3 connh/ance on the part of accused person. on the date] whote amount shouM be remif On the other hand, teailied Ha\ring heard leam^c) impugned order, whereby th^ )un^el for the appellant. Pa<iel Lawyer for the S<at8/resp<»Klent |rety to the accused namely, Peshuram in Ijias preterred this appeal undsr Sscttwi 449 of being aggrieved by ttie order dated 22-2- Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, in M.J.C. jmed Addittonal Sessions Judge has forfeited (n spite of the service of notice, the appeltamt Sessions Judge and also feuled to show i-appearance of accused Peshuram or his '^^^l- |ce on his brother Ramchandra Singh. ^unset for the parties and as agreed by leamed appeai is being disposed of at the admission appetlant argued iftat as accused Peshuram of three months and he has already been late of hearing on account of sudden illness of ipear before the triat Court, particularly before a(vetlant was not pereonally served and he !005. He further argued that there was no appellant regarding the absconding of the of hearinfl, ttierefbre, in the cireum^anees, the ted. Panel Lawyer opposed Ifte appeai. counsel for the parties, 1 have perused the whole surety amount of Rs.5,000/- has been the the XI-HC-78 Sn^T^T f?iTR> n'IT3<is;iia'iict> ^^^^-KS^SSf Soma 3^ •^lflini, 81x0•H'Ko, jsldlU^'l. __..6?.^.^^S/ ^ 200^ 3ll^<l ^ach \ wciTWEifN'aii^r si.trety thereft»re impuSned forfeited as the appellant faii against the notice. It is admit the present appellant stood one date i.<; 28-9-2004, pertod of three months ha ap( reteased on bail. Therefore, purpose of Uie surety was to'; the Court, and he had alrei circumstances the order 'impuj not to have forfeited the wholej an amount of Rs.500/- is would meet the ends ofjustice. In the result, theappea] forfeited out of the total surety remitted. The appellant to failing which ttie trial Court accordance with law. In vww ofttiis order, M.(( Partiesare entitted for c< i^d to appear on the dsrte and show cause a^d posWon Uiat accused Pediuram, to whom i. faifed to appear befors Uie triai Court on i, the bail bonds were fbrfeited, but within a rfeared before the Court and he has also been Sn the facte and ciroumstances, as the main ^ecure presence of the accused person betore ^dy appeared and released on baB, in is harsh. The learned triai Court <nigM 1 surety amount, instead, tooking to the facts, if and remaining amount fe remiBed that ftirfelted ^rafepfrr WRcfFffIW'd^FRTC ^srf^Tra.n^r is partty altowed. The amount of Rs.500/- is lamount and remainlng amount of Rs.4,50(y- is 4eposit Rs.50)/- within a period of one week Ishatl be entiUed to recover the amount, in ;ri.)P.No.778/20)5 stands disposed of. irtHtedcopyofthisorder. -— Sd/- L.C. Bhaduo Judge