IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.190 OF 2009 Khambhu Thapa S/o Naval Singh Thapa R/o 382/458 Ward No.4 Seesam Bada, Muni-Ki-Reti, Tehri Garhwal ……… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…… Respondent (2) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.55 OF 2009 Smt. Balwant Kaur W/o Late Gurbachan Singh R/o 262, Chandrabhaga, Chandreshwar Nagar, Rishikesh, District Dehradun ……… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand ..…… Respondent Dated: April 27, 2010 Sri D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the appellant Khambhu Thapa Sri Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the appellant Balwant Kaur Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Both these criminal appeals have been preferred against the same order dated 5.4.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Ist, Dehradun hence, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. These criminal appeals, preferred by the appellants u/s 449 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the order dated 5.4.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Ist F.T.C., Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.103 of 2007, State Vs. Dan Singh. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. 4. Brief facts of the case are that appellants Khambhu Thapa and Smt. Balwant Kaur were sureties of Dan Singh, who was the accused in S.T. No.103/2007 u/s 363/366 IPC. The accused moved the bail application before the court and was ordered to be release on bail. The appellants became the sureties and accordingly they furnished the surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each. On the basis of the surety bonds furnished by the appellants, accused Dan Singh was released on bail. However, after that accused Dan Singh did not appear before the trial court and thus non-bailable warrant was issued against him and the proceedings u/s 82/83 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against him. But even after that the accused did not appear before the court below and the appellants also failed to trace out and produced the accused in the court despite being given enough time. Hence, learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., Dehradun vide his order dated 5.4.2008 forfeited the surety bonds in favour of State and issued recovery warrant against the appellants and also issued fresh non-bailable warrant against the accused Dan Singh. Thereafter, on 25.6.2008, the appellants themselves produced the accused in the court and on this ground that they have produced the accused in the court they moved an application for cancellation of recovery warrant issued against them, which was rejected by the trial court. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 5.4.2008, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any mistake in the impugned order and stated that the order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., Dehradun is correct and justified. Sri D.S. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant Khambhu Thapa stated that the appellant is a poor labourer and his financial condition is not good. He is the only earning member in his family and the entire family is dependent upon him. Sri Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant Smt. Balwant Kaur also stated that the appellant is a poor lady. She is 63 years of age and is also ailing with several diseases. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that both the appellants are very poor and are not in a position to pay surety amount, as directed by the court below. It is further submitted that on 25.6.2008, the accused was produced in the trial court by the appellants, hence, it is prayed that surety amount may be remitted to Rs.10,000/- against each of the appellant. 6. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the appellants are very poor persons and also keeping in view that the accused Dan Singh was produced by the appellant in the court on 25.6.2008 after issuing of recovery warrant, it would be just and proper and also in the interest of justice to remit the surety amount to Rs.10,000/- against each of the appellant. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The order dated 5.4.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., Dehradun, issuing recovery warrant against the appellants, is set aside. Each of the appellant is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/- towards surety amount, within three months from today. (Dharam Veer, J.) April 27, 2010 RG