JUDGMENT
A.K. Gohil, J.
1. Surety has filed this appeal under Section 449, Cr.PC against the order dated 29-7-2000 by which Trial Court has forfeited the bail amount of Rs. 50,000/- and directed that in default of recovery of the amount, appellant be sent to civil jail for a period of six months.
2. Contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in Sessions Trial No. 38/99 appellant was surety of co-accused Pappu alias Rajkumar s/o Kishan Singh for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. He was regularly appearing. He was also present in the Court on the date of judgment but he ran away from the accused box of the Court before the pronouncement of the judgment but in the show-cause notice nothing was mentioned about these facts. His contention is that nothing has been mentioned in the surety bond that for such an incident he will be responsible for payment of amount of bond and submitted that he has not violated any terms and conditions of the surety bond and the Trial Court has wrongly and illegally directed for the recovery of the said amount. and in default to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of six months. In nutshell, he submitted that Trial Court has not considered the terms and conditions of the surely bond which he has produced alongwith the documents according to which he is not responsible when the accused runs away from the custody of the Court.
3. In reply learned Counsel for respondent/State supported the impugned order.
4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order. On 11-5-2000 Sessions Trial No. 38/99 was listed for pronouncement of judgment and just before the pronouncement of judgment accused ran away from the Court. Thereafter Court treated him as absconding. Show-cause notice was issued to the appellant-surety but despite grant of time he could not produce the accused in the Court. It is not in dispute that from 11 -5-2000 till date the accused is absconding.
5. Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides about the forfeiture of bond. Section 441 makes provision regarding bond of accused and sureties. It provides that before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the police officer or Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person, and, when he is released on bail, by one or more than sufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond, and shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the police officer or Court, as the case may be. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision of Section 441, it is clear that the surety shall be liable for the appearance of the accused in the Court not only on one hearing but on all subsequent hearings as may be fixed by the Court and the bond shall continue to remain in operation until otherwise directed by the Court. This clearly mean that the accused will not only appear on one hearing but shall continue to appear until otherwise directed on the assurance given by the surety in the surety bond. Sub-section (2) of Section 441, Cr.PC clearly provides that the bond shall also contain that condition. Section 441, Cr.PC also provides the conditions in which surety will be discharged. Therefore, as per the surety bond, appellant is liable to produce the accused and secure his presence and until and unless otherwise directed the accused is bound to remain present before the Court on all the days of hearing. Appellant can not be absolved from his liability merely by saying that accused was present in the Court and was under the custody of the Court and if he ran away he is not liable. The very object of the bail bond is to ensure the appearance of the accused in Court and the duty of the surety is to sec that he remained present continuously until he is directed otherwise. If the accused appears and does not remain present till the conclusion of the proceedings or orders passed by the Court, it can not he said that he appeared and thereafter the surety is not liable. Appearance clearly means that he will appear and remain present till further orders passed by the Court either to fix next date of hearing or pronouncement of judgment or any other direction given by the Court. Surety can not say that for some time he remained present in the Court, therefore, he is not liable. If the accused ran away it means he did not remain present in the Court till the orders were passed by the Court and in such circumstances the liability of the surely can not be discharged and the surety is liable. Under the law, position is clear and ,the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant can not be accepted being fanciful.
6. Thus under the facts and circumstances of the case surety can not be absolved from his liability. Accused has been convicted in Sessions Trial and he is still absconding. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly forfeited the amount of surety bond and the same is liable to be recovered from his estate. Trial Court has rightly directed that in case amount is not recovered the surety be committed to civil jail for a period of six months. I do not think that Trial Court has committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. No case is made out to interfere in this appeal.
7. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.