Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 4.5.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge(A.C.) Bareilly in Special Case no. 13 of 2005 whereby the bail bonds and personal bonds of the appellant has been forfeited, N.B.W. and the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the appellant, notices have also been issued to the sureties and recovery certificate has been issued to recover the amount of personal bond through the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that due to some unavoidable circumstances, the appellant could not appear in the court concerned, the trial court has passed the order dated 4.5.2010 forfeiting the bail bonds and personal bond, issued N.B.W. and process under section 82 Cr.P.C. and recovery certificate has also been issued to recover the forfeited amount from the appellant, after issuing the above mentioned order, the court concerned passed the order dated 26.5.2010 releasing the appellant on bail on the same bail bonds, which have already been furnished by the sureties on submitting the affidavits by the same sureties in such circumstances the court concerned has made its own order dated 4.5.2010 ineffective with regard to the forfeiture of the surety bonds, hence the impugned order may be quashed.
In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by the leaned A.G.A. that the learned Special Judge (A.C.) Bareilly has not committed any error in passing the impugned order but that part of the order has been made ineffective vide order dated 26.5.2010 passed by the same court releasing the appellant on bail on the same bail bonds earlier furnished by the sureties. It is further submitted that this appeal may be finally disposed of.
Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record it appears that the order dated 4.5.2010 has become ineffective with regard to the forfeiture of the surety bonds because the court concerned has permitted to release the appellant on bail on same bail bond on giving undertaking that the appellant shall be present in the court on the date fixed and the appellant was also permitted to furnish fresh personal bond, in such circumstance, it appear to be proper that order for realising the forfeited amount of personal bond, may also be kept in abeyance on furnishing undertaking that the appellant shall cooperate with the proceedings of trail, shall appear in court on every date fixed there and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments, therefore, the order dated 4.5.2010 with regard to issue of recovery certificate to recover the amount of personal bond from the appellant through the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur shall be kept in abeyance on the undertaking as mentioned above, if furnished by the appellant. In default, the forfeited amount of the personal bond may be realised from the appellant.
With this direction this appeal is finally disposed of.
DT. 18.6.2010 NA