JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. R. K. Soni for the applicant Ram Lal and the learned P. P. 2. Ram Lal stood as surety of accused Bhairoo for his production in this court in S. B. Cr. Appeal No. 94/81. It appears that accused-Bhairoo did not appear before the court in connection with the said appeal and by order Date 25.9.81, it was directed that the case u/s. 445 Cr P.C. be initiated against the accused-Bhairoo and surety Ram Lal and thereafter notices were issued to Bhairoo and Ram Lal requiring them show cause as to why the amount of the surety may not be recovered from them. In the said proceedings Mr. B. R, Mehta filed the memo of appearance on behalf of Bhairoo and surety Ram Lal on 21.1.82. On the said date Shri Mehta wanted time to produce the accused Bhairoo and surety Ram Lal before the court and it was directed that accused Bhairoo and surety Ram Lal be produced on 12.2.82. 3. The accused and the surety were however not produced on 12.2.82 as well as on the other dates to which the case was adjourned. On 4th March, 82 Shri Mehta submitted that he had not been able to contact the accused and surety and that he is not in a position to produce them in court and thereupon a direction was given that non-bailable warrants be issued for the arrest of the accused Bhairoo and surety Ram Lal to secure their presence in this court. 4. In response to this order non-bailable warrants were issued for the arrest of the accused Bhairoo and the surety Ram Lal and in execution of the said warrants both of them have been produced in this court. 5. This application has been filed by Ram Lal surety stating that his arrest is illegal and that he should be set at liberty. 6. I have heard Mr. R K. Soni learned counsel for the surety Ram Lal and lerned Public Prosecutor, Shri Soni has submitted these proceedings u/s. 446 Cr.P.C. against the surety, the arrest of the surety could not be ordered and that arrest of Ram Lal is therefore illegal and that Ram Lal should be set at liberty forth with. 7. I find force in the aforesaid submission of Shri Soni. 7. I find force in the aforesaid submission of Shri Soni. Proceedings u/s. 446 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against surety Ram Lal and in the said proceedings the court is entitled to pass an order for the recovery of the amount of surety bond furnished by the surety after affording to him an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action, and only in the event of the amount not being recovered from the surety an order can be passed for imprisonment in Civil Jail for a term which may extend to six months. 8. In the present case, no order has been made so far directing the recovery of the amount of the surety bond from Ram Lal. No order for arrest of Ram Lal could therefore be passed. 9. In the circumstances the non-bailable warrants that were issued for the arrest of Ram Lal are cancelled. 10. It is directed that Ram Lal may be set at liberty forthwith. *******