IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 511 of 2001 Jai Bhagwan Singh & Anr. .…. Appellants Versus State of Uttaranchal …………… Respondent September 27, 2010 Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. MA Khan, Brief Holder for the State/respondent. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This appeal, preferred by the appellants u/s 449 (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC), is directed against the order dated 11.4.2001 passed by the III FTC/Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 58/99, State v. Israr. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were sureties of accused Israr under Section 304 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, in which the appellants had filed surety bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each to produce the accused. When the accused was not present before the trial court, then non- bailable warrant was issued against the accused and notice was issued to the appellants to produce the accused and to show cause. Thereafter the trial court imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- against each of the appellants and the recovery warrants were issued against each of the appellants. Thereafter accused Israr surrendered on 9.5.2001 before the trial court and after recording the evidence, the Additional Sessions Judge/III FTC, Dehradun has acquitted the accused Israr for the charge levelled against him under Section 304 IPC and 25 Arms Act vide his judgment and order dated 3.7.2001. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that as the accused has been acquitted by the trial court in which the 2 appellants were sureties and the accused surrendered on 9.5.2001 before the trial court and the recovery warrants were issued on 11.4.2001 and notices were not served on the appellants and no opportunity of hearing was given to them before passing the order dated 11.4.2001, hence the appellants are entitled for the relief. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the record reveals that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the appellants before passing the aforesaid order dated 11.4.2001. Further the accused Israr also surrendered on 9.5.2001 before the trial court and thereafter acquitted by the trial court. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that the aforesaid order dated 11.4.2001 be quashed. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 11.4.2001 passed by the III FTC/Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Session Trial No. 58/99, State v. Israr is hereby quashed. 6. Copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court for its compliance. Let the lower court record be sent back. (Dharam Veer, J.) 27.9.2010 PRABODH