Judgment ANAND PRASAD SINHA, J. 1. This application is directed against the order dated 30-9-1982 passed in G. R. Case No. 419 of 1973 by which an order has been passed for issue of distress warrant against the petitioner for realisation of the bail amount of Rs. 5000/- as the petitioner stood as a bailor for an accused involved in a case under Sections 279 aad 337 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that there arose a case being Barauni P. S. Case No. 15(3)73 for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code against one Ramchaliter Dubia. He was released on bail by the police on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 500 and the petitioner stood as a bailor. After investigation charge-sheet had been submitted and cognizance was taken of the offence and processes had been issued against the accused. When the processes were issued against the accused, he did not appear before the trial court and thus a notice was issued to the petitioner who had appeared and had filed a show cause. After hearing the show cause, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that the show cause was not satisfactory and had forfeited the amount of bail bond and further had asked the petitioner to show cause as to why the amount of bail bond amounting to Rs. 5000 be not realised from him. The petitioner had filed show cause and after hearing the impugned order has been passed for realisation of the amount. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Begusarai, and the appeal has been dismissed. 4. The only point raised on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel is that since the bail bond had been executed before the police, it is not permissible in law to enforce the same by the trial court and consequently the order for realisation of the amount is not legal. 5. I do not find any merit in this contention. Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) provides for the release of a person on bail by police involved in a bailable offence. 5. I do not find any merit in this contention. Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) provides for the release of a person on bail by police involved in a bailable offence. Further Section 436(2) of the Code indicates that in case of breach of appearance in accordance with the condition of the bail bond, such person can be refused bail by the court when on a subsequent occasion in the same case the released person appears before the court or is brought in custody. This will indicate that a bail bond executed before the police is taken note of by a court and that court, in my opinion, will be either the court where after institution of the case the proceeding is pending before taking cognizance of the offence and also that court where the case has been transferred for trial. In either of the two courts, according to the procedure, after institution of a case against any person, that person is required to appear and therefore, any failure in appearance before such court will be the subject matter of action for breach of the conditions of the bail bond having been furnished before the police. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner stood a bailor and undertook to pay Rs. 5000/- in case of failure of the accused in appearance where subsequently he was required to appear in connection with the case. Therefore, there is a clear stipulation in the bail bond that the responsibility for the appearance, in furtherance of the bail bond, of the accused, before any court what-so-ever, where subsequently the accused was required to appear, was on the bailor. 7. The decisions in the case of Rameshwar Bhartia v. State of Assam (AIR 1952 Supreme Court 405) and Anwar Ahmad v. State of U. P. (AIR 1976 Supreme Court, 680) relied upon by the petitioner relate to such bonds which had been executed before the police for production of any article seized by the police and thus the facts involved in such cases cannot be said to be application on the facts of the instant case. 8. 8. A bail bond executed before a police is on account of the fact that the person involved in a bailable offence should be released as his detention in custody, if he is prepared to offer bail will be contrary to law. Thus, a bail bond executed before a police is not for his appearance before the police because a person accused in an offence, during investigation, is under obligation to make himself available before the police for investigation and for that, strictly speaking, no bail bond is required to be furnished and that being so, the bail bond so furnished before the police, in such circumstance, is definitely for appearance before a court where definitely such persons involved in a bailable offence is required to appear if and when charge-sheet is submitted and the process of trial takes place. Primarily, power for forfeiture of the bail amount and its realisation falls within the jurisdiction of a court and on that basis also the bail bond so furnished befor the police is meant for appearance before a court and any action for the breach of the conditions of the bail bond is to be taken by the concerned court in which the bailor undertakes to produce the accused when required. 9. Thus, in the instant case, when the bailor has failed to produce the accused, the impugned order is perfectly in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the application fails and is dismissed.