JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals U/s 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, have been filed by the appellants in Cr Case Nos. 382/2001 & 370/2001, against orders dated 4.9.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karauli. Since the appellants and facts giving rise to these appeals are same and s identical, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly stated, relevant facts giving rise to these appeals are that the appellants stood sureties for accused Banno in two Sessions Case Nos. 62/2000 arising out of FIR No. 41/2000 PS Mandrail (Karauli) and 66/2000 10 arising out of FIR No. 25/2000 PS Karanpur (Karauli), to produce him on each every date of hearing in those cases but the said accused Banno remained absent in the Court of Sessions Judge, Karauli on 12.6.2001, so his bail bonds were forfeited and proceedings U/s 446 CrPC were initiated separately in both the cases. After receipt of the notice in those proceedings, the appellants tried to trace out accused Banno and found that he had been killed in an encounter with the police on 20.6.2001 and he could not appear before the aforesaid Court on 12.6.2001 owing to his having fallen ill because of fever. They submitted their reply to the above effect on 14.8.2001. But, the learned court below did not accept their explanation submitted in their reply and in spite of there being a report of the police on the notice to accused Banno, dated 19.7.2001 that he had been killed in police encounter, entire amount of sureties submitted by the appellants was forfeited and recovery proceedings were initiated. Aggrieved by the said orders, they have filed these two appeals. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and have also perused relevant record. 4. As indicated above, the facts are not in dispute. The appellant stood sureties for accused Banno, who failed to appear in the trial Court on 12.6.2001. He was killed in police encounter on 20.6.2001 as reported on 19.7.2001. It is also not in dispute that these facts were there on record and were also submitted by the appellants in their reply filed to the notice issued against them U/s 446, CrPC. He was killed in police encounter on 20.6.2001 as reported on 19.7.2001. It is also not in dispute that these facts were there on record and were also submitted by the appellants in their reply filed to the notice issued against them U/s 446, CrPC. Indeed, as contended by their learned counsel, it was unjust and arbitrary on the part of learned court below to have forfeited entire amount of sureties in spite of the fact that accused Banno for whom appellants stood sureties, was killed in police encounter within ten days of his absence from the Court. It is true that he did not appear in Court on 12.6.2001 but they have clearly stated that accused Banno could not appear in Court on 12.6.2001 on account of his illness due to fever, which fact has not been controverted from the side of prosecution. The explanation given by the appellants or non-appearance of accused Banno in Court on 12.6.2001 could not be dubbed as unbelievable and unsatisfactory. The impugned orders forfeiting entire surety amount in both the cases therefore cannot be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5. In the result, both the appeals are allowed and the impugned order dated 4.9.2001 in both the cases are hereby quashed and set aside. 6. Records of both the cases be returned forthwith to the concerned court, with copies of the judgment.Both Appeals Allowed. *******