JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the appellants on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In view of the reasons stated in the application, I find sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The delay of 50 days in preferring the appeal is accordingly condoned. 2. The applicants/appellants Damodar and three others have come up before this Court by way of the instant appeal challenging the order dated 2.12.1998 of learned Sessions Judge Dholpur in Criminal Case No. 18/91 on the grounds inter-alia that they had stood surety for accused Sirmohar who was charged along with co-accused for offences under Section 395 and 396 IPC. The appellants had submitted bail bonds for accused-Sirmohar and co-accused in the said case before the trial Court whereupon the accused were released on bail pending trial. One of the accused Sirmohar son of Laxman had jumped bail during trial in Sessions Case No. 18/91 before learned Sessions Judge Dholpur consequent upon which, attachment proceedings have been initiated against them by the trial Court as per Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. The accused Sirmohar and six others in Sessions Case No. 39/96 have since been acquitted of the charge for offences under Sections 395 & 397 IPC vide order dated 10.9.1996 by the trial court i.e. Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur. The aforesaid trial has ended up in acquittal of accused Ramnath, Badri, Gayaprasad, Sriniwas, Sirmohar, Parmal and Man Singh vide judgment & order of the trial court dated 10.9.1996 as aforesaid. 3. Prima-facie, I am of the view that since the trial of the accused for whom the appellants had stood sureties has since already ended up in their acquittal, no purpose would be served by recovery of the penalty from them or with regard to attachment of the property of the appellants pursuant to the proceedings initiated against them under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. and hence, the appellants should be discharged of their respective obligations towards the trial Court in the above trial. 4. As a result of above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The appellants deserve to be discharged as regards the proceedings initiated against them under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C. which accordingly is directed to be dropped and the warrants of attachment issued in consequence thereof are also directed to be withdrawn as well as the further proceedings in the matter are also directed to be dropped.Appeal Allowed. *******