- #3 % 2l.04.20ll ,.....LMan.i.sh Kumar. Advocate for th/e petitioner. Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for tne sfat.e.trespondent with 51 S.Ram, P.S.Special Cell. ! +Cri.M.C. 615/2011 I This is a petition seeking quashing/ of order of learned Additional I I Sessions Judge dated 24th january, 2011, /whereby she declined to accept I surety bond furnished by the surety on the /ground that surety has no control I over the convict/petitioner. The relevant portion of the order of learned I I I Additional Sessions· judge dated is reproduced thus: I "Sureties are reported to bk. friend of brother of convict, who is a resident of Nepali The so called brother f\/lohd. Shakeel is present and subm ts that corovict is not his real brother. In the facts and circrurmstances, sureties do I . not seem to have control over the convict. If the surety bond are accepted convict is /ikelt to cross the border of the country and sun;ties will not e. . able to.· produce him, payment of penalty 1s not the pur· of thf= surety bond. It is more important that the convict make himself available to face the consequences of appear"· I Learned counsel for the submits that the petitioner .is a resident of Nepal and he is not in a PfSition to furnish any other sureties. The sureties produced by the were sound and they were I Government Servants. Despite that, t+e learned Additional Sessions judge, who was to look into the soundness of/ the sureties, has declined the surety I bond. Signing Date:17.08.2024 17:00:37 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified .. I Learned APP, on the other hand; argued in favour of the impugned I order and submitted that the petitioner has been convicted for a serious I offence under Section 21 of the NDPS Act & Section 489C IPC and since he is I not the resident of India, there is every\ possibility that if he is released without verifying the control of the over the convict/petitioner, their capacity to produce him in the court, if reqyired, he is likely to abscond. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned of learned Additional Sessions Judge. 11 1 I do not find any infirmity in the order for the reason that it is the obligation \on the court while accepting the surety bond to look into not only the of the surety but the fact that whether the surety has control over convict/petitioner and whether, he would be in a position to produce the as and when required. The sureties produced before the concerned court were neither r I related to the petitioner nor they were frierld of the petitioner. They were allegedly the friends of so called brother of the convict, whose exact relationship is not disclosed. I In view of the above facts, I do not finq any merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. APRIL 21, 2011 akb I (AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE