1 S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.704/2007 (Bhagwan Singh & Ors. Vs. State) Date of order : 3.9.2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. H.S. Shrimali, for the appellant. Mr. Vishnu Kachwaha, Public Prosecutor. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant No.1 was standing as surety of accused Mahendra Singh in Sessions Case No.160/2003 pending before Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bikaner. The said accused Mahendra Singh could not appear before the learned trial Court on 7.9.2006 due to illness of his mother, therefore, his bail bonds were forfeited and proceeding under Section 446 Cr.P.C. was initiated against the accused Mahendra Singh and his surety. It is further stated in the appeal that accused Mahendra Singh was declared absconder and warrant of attachment was issued on 5.4.2007 and the appellant-surety was not aware about his non-appearance before the trial Court but as soon as he came to know about issuance of warrant of attachment, he made the accused Mahendra Singh to surrender before the trial Court and filed reply for non-appearance of the accused. However, the learned trial Court issued the order for recovery of amount of 2 surety from the appellant-surety vide impugned order dated 9.8.2007. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that due to his efforts accused Mahendra Singh surrendered before the Court and reasons for his non-appearance was illness of his mother and learned trial Court ought to have considered the reasons disclosed by the appellant- surety in his reply to notice under Section 446 Cr.P.C. However, the learned trial Court has refused to accept the reasons mentioned in his reply. Therefore, the order impugned is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that now-a-days accused are usually absconding during trial, therefore, such order has been passed by learned trial Court for securing the presence of accused. It is further contended that surety is equally responsible for attendance of accused, therefore, no lenient view is required to be taken in the present case and the order impugned passed by trial Court is perfectly legal after considering all aspect of the matter. Thus, it is prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties. 3 It is true that every accused is required to appear before the trial Court as and when required during the course of trial but it is also true that in the event of any compelling circumstances, he can be exempted from his personal appearance before the Court. However, in the present case, on the date of non-appearance, no application for exemption was filed, therefore, the trial Court has forfeited the bail bonds of accused Mahendra Singh. It is further obvious that in this case the trial has already been concluded on 17.8.2007. In this view of the matter and upon the fact that trial in this case is already concluded, therefore, in the interest of justice, the order impugned dated 9.8.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bikaner is set aside. However, the appellants is directed to deposit Rs.500/- with the trial Court as penalty. With these directions, the appeal is disposed of. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J . arun