1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.349 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200 OF 1996 State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. V/s. Ibrahim Mohammed Chahlil & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.Rajesh More, APP for State. Mr.D.H.Kumthekar for Surety-respondent No.2. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : JANUARY 18, 2008. DATE : JANUARY 18, 2008. DATE : JANUARY 18, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard learned APP and Counsel for the Respondent No.2. 2. This application is now pressed for relief of forfeiture of surety amount given by the Respondent No.2 for releasing the Respondent No.1 on bail. It is not in dispute that the Criminal Appeal preferred by the Respondent No.1 has been dismissed on 13th July, 2003. Upon dismissal of the said Appeal, the Respondent no.1 who had availed of bail during the pendency of the Appeal was expected to surrender to undergo the sentence awarded by the Lower Court, which stood confirmed by the dismissal of the Appeal. 2 Even now the Respondent No.1 has not surrendered to undergo his remaining sentence. The Respondent No.2 being surety was obliged to ensure presence of the Respondent No.1. However, the Respondent No.2 now expresses his inability to produce the Respondent No.1. In this backdrop, the State has applied for invoking the surety amount given by the Respondent No.2 on which basis, the Respondent No.1 came to be released on bail. 3. The only objection taken on behalf of the Respondent No.2 is that the State had filed similar application before the lower Court, which however, was later on withdrawn. I find no substance in this objection. The fact that the said application was withdrawn does not preclude this Court to exercise powers under section 482 of the Code. It would have been a different matter, if the said application was rejected by the lower Court on merit. Even then, if it was an adverse order, the State would have approached this Court in appeal. Taking any view of the matter, objection does not commend to me. 4. It was then contended on behalf of the Respondent No.2 that lenient view may be taken. I see no reason to show indulgence, especially when the 3 offence in question committed by the Respondent No.1 was under section 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code, which is a serious offence. Notwithstanding seriousness of the offence and involvement of the Respondent no.1 in the said offence, if the Respondent No.2 chose to remain surety for the Respondent No.1 should face the consequences of forfeiture of the surety amount, which is the only order that can be passed in the fact situation of the present case against the Respondent No.2 and hence the Application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c). Disposed off accordingly. 5. Disposal of this Application will not absolve the local police officers from ensuring arrest of the absconding accused. The local police officer shall make all efforts in that behalf. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)