JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.25832 of 2018: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to set aside the dismissal order of the Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai passed in Crl.R.C.No.55 of 2016, dated 12.09.2018, by confirming the order in Crl.MP.No.1099 of 2014, dated 20.05.2016 on the file of the learned Xth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.25834 of 2018: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C , to set aside the dismissal order of the Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai passed in Crl.R.C.No.54 of 2016, dated 12.09.2018, by confirming the order in Crl.MP.No.1000 of 2014, dated 20.05.2016 on the file of the learned Xth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.)

1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.R.C.Nos.55 and 54 of 2016, dated 12.09.2018, confirming the order of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, made in Crl.M.P.Nos.1099 and 1000 of 2014, dated 20.05.2016 respectively, dismissing the applications filed by the petitioners to discharge them from sureties.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 2nd respondent Police registered a case in Cr.No.844 of 2013, for offences under Section 406, 420 and 414 of IPC against the 1st respondent and another person. Both the accused persons were arrested and were remanded to Judicial custody. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed a bail petition and since the petitioners are known to the 1st respondent, they were requested to stand as sureties.

3. The bail petitions filed by the 1st respondent was ordered by the X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai on 31.01.2014, and the petitioners also executed bonds, while standing as sureties.

4. The petitioners filed petitions before the X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore seeking for discharging them as sureties. These petitions were dismissed, and the said orders were also confirmed by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai. Both the Courts have held that sureties cannot be discharged, without the appearance of the accused person and more particularly, due to the fact that the accused person is absconding and a non bailable warrant is also pending against him.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a surety, at the best, can be bound only to the extent of the surety bond amount given by him, which could be forfeited to the State and a surety cannot be permanently bound, even in a case, where he wants to be discharged. The learned counsel would submit that by compelling the petitioners to continue as sureties against their willingness, will amount to interfering with their liberty, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below and the Court below has merely followed the procedure under Section 444 of Cr.P.C and till the accused persons are secured, sureties can never be discharged.

7. This Court has carefully considered the submission made on either side.

8. This case raises an important and interesting question as to whether, a person who stood as a surety for an accused person, at the time when the accused person was released on bail, should continue to be a surety against his willingness on the ground that the accused person is absconding, and until he is secured, the surety will not be discharged?

9. It will be relevant to extract the provisions of Section 444 of Cr.P.C.

Discharge of Sureties:-

1. All or any sureties for the attendance and appearance of a person released on bail may at any time apply to a Magistrate to discharge the bond, either wholly or so far as relates to the applicants.

2. On such application being made, the Magistrate shall issue his warrant of arrest directing that the person so released be brought before him.

3. On