Short Note : This revision has been filed by the two sureties whose bail bonds have been forfeited and recovery proceedings have been started against them for realisation of the penalty amounts. Their appeal before the District Magistrate also failed. The applicant No.1 Sadai has separately filed connected Criminal Revision No. 238 of 1972 against the same order and no separate order need be passed in that revision. Held : It is contended by the applicants that after getting the accused arrested at Patna, the applicants were absolved of their liability to produce the accused before the trial Magistrate. It is true that once the accused was arrested, it was no longer within the control of the applicants to produce the accused before the trial Magistrate and it was for the police to produce him in the Court. The applicants cannot be, in any way, held responsible for granting of bail to the accused and once he was released by the SDM., Patna, the surety in that Court was liable to produce the accused before the trial Magistrate on 5-2-1971. In Mahipal Singh v. The State, 1966 (1) CrLJ 323, a Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the surety's failure to produce the accused before the Court was because the accused escaped from the police custody while being brought from jail to Court and the surety bonds cannot be forfeited. In that case, the accused thereafter being released on bail was convicted in another case and was undergoing jail sentence. While he was being brought from the jail, he escaped. It was, therefore, held that since the accused was in police custody, it was not possible for the sureties to have produced him in Court on the date of hearing. In the present case, the applicants cannot be held liable for the non-appearance of the accused on and after 5-2-1971. But certainly they are liable for the non-appearance of the accused on 15-9-1970 and thereby they committed breach of the condition of the bonds and their bonds have been rightly forfeited. However, looking to the efforts made by the applicants in tracing out the accused who subsequently jumped his bail on being released by SDM, Patna, the applicants are absolved from producing the accused again in the Court. I, therefore, think that the recovery of entire bond amount of Rs. However, looking to the efforts made by the applicants in tracing out the accused who subsequently jumped his bail on being released by SDM, Patna, the applicants are absolved from producing the accused again in the Court. I, therefore, think that the recovery of entire bond amount of Rs. 7,000 from each of the applicants is unduly harsh and excessive Instead I direct that each of the applicants to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000 as penalty by remitting the remaining amount of the penalties imposed. 1966 (1) CrLJ 323, relied on. Revision partly allowed.