JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant had moved Criminal Miscellaneous Second Parole Bail Application in this case which came up before the Court on April, 18, 1994 and the appellant was granted 20 days parole on condition of executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and furnishing two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Udaipur. 2. It was presumed that the appellant got himself released on the strength of this order and when he did not surrender after the period of parole was over, it was directed that action under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be taken against the appellant by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur. 3. However, it later on transpired that the appellant did not get himself released under the Orders of this Court after complying with the conditions imposed on him but he was released under the Orders of the District Magistrate who granted him parole. In view of this, the learned Sessions Judge expressed his inability to proceed against the appellant under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. In view of the aforesaid report, the question of forfeiting the personal bond as well as the surety bonds does not arise. The question only is whether the appellant should be permitted to continue this appeal in absentia. In Ram Naresh Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 1500 , it has been observed that in the absence of the accused-appellant, his appeal cannot be decided on merits but in appropriate cases discipline can be enforced by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. 5. In this case, the appellant has not turned up before this Court after having got himself released on parole. He has not surrendered to the Jail authorities either. Several efforts to execute the warrant against him have also failed. 6. In such circumstances, we do not think it fit and proper to allow the appellant luxury of keeping his appeal alive while he himself is absconding. 7. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution.Appeal dismissed. *******