IMPORTANT POINT
The liability of sureties ends upon the accused's surrender, and unjust forfeiture of the surety amount violates principles of justice and equity.

JUDGMENT :

Shamim Ahmed, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 449 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) against the judgment and order dated 25.01.2006 passed by the court of learned Additional Session Judge, Hardoi.

3. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the appellants stood as sureties for the accused in Criminal Case No. 199/97. Upon the accused’s failure to appear in court, the surety amount of Rs. 10,000/-was ordered to be forfeited. The learned Additional Session Judge, Hardoi, issued a recovery warrant for the said amount through the order dated 25/01/2006, rejecting the appellants' application for reconsideration

4. Learned counsel for appellants has further submitted that as soon as the appellants received the information about the abscond of the accused, they made their best efforts to surrender the accused before the court.

5. Learned counsel for appellants has further submitted that the order dated 25/01/2006 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Hardoi, is unjustified both in law and in fact.

6. Learned counsel for appellants has further submitted that the learned court below failed to appreciate the relevant facts of the case, leading to the issuance of the recovery warrant against the appellants. The liability of the surety ended when the accused, Mahendra, surrendered before the concerned court on 16.11.2005 at District Jail Hardoi.

7. Learned counsel for appellants has further submitted that the appellants made several efforts to produce the accused before the court but were unable to do so due to his illness and ongoing treatment at various places. The learned Additional Session Judge did not adequately consider these facts and wrongly rejected the application filed by the appellants.

8. Learned AGA submitted that the purpose of Section 446 Cr.P.C. is to ensure compliance with court orders and secure the presence of the accused. The attachment of property serves as a deterrent against non-compliance and a mechanism to enforce the surety's obligation.

9. The learned AGA Submitted that the order of the learned Additional Session Judge, Hardoi, stating that the surety amount was forfeited due to the appellants' failure to produce the accused as required.The government maintains that the recovery proceedings for the surety amount are in accordance with the law and should be upheld.

10. Learned AGA further submitted that the trial court took the correct approach in rejecting the appellants' application, considering the procedural requirement for enforcing surety obligations and ensuring justice is upheld. The trial court exercised discretion based on the existing circumstances, and there was no manifest error in its decision-making process.

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned AGA for the State.

12. In light of the arguments presented and the facts established, it is evident that the appellants acted diligently to comply with their surety obligations and took all possible steps to ensure the presence of the accused before the court.

13. The court finds that the appellants made sincere efforts to produce the accused before the court, as evidenced by their actions and attempts to locate him despite his illness and treatment. The surrender of the accused, Mahendra, before the concerned court on 16.11.2005, effectively ended the liability of the surety.

14. The accused, Mahendra, surrendered before the concerned court on 16.11.2005 at District Jail Hardoi. This surrender is a critical event that should have been duly considered by the lower court. The surrender of the accused effectively ended the liability of the sureties, as their primary obligation was to ensure the accused’s appearance in court.

15. Section 446 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) deals with the forfeiture of bonds given by individuals (sureties) in criminal proceedings, particularly when there is a failure t