Judgment ( 1. ) Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30 12 99 passed by the Court below forfeiting the bail bonds of the surety and directing the appellants to deposit the amount of surety, the appellants have filed this criminal appeal under Section 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( 2. ) Sans unnecessary details, the facts lie in narrow compass. One Dheer Singh was the surety of accused-Ram Singh On 25 9-99 the accused who was on bail, did not appear in the Court and as such the bail bonds were forfeited The Court found that the surety had died on 31-7-98. However, by the impugned order, the Court below has directed the appellants, who are the heirs of the surety, to deposit the surety amount of Rs 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand). Hence this appeal. ( 3. ) Shri Mayank Vajpayee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants by inviting my attention to sub-section (4) of Section 446 of Cr P C has submitted that in case the surety dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate shall be discharged from all liability in respect to bond and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the Court below erred in law by passing the impugned order directing the appellants to deposit the surety amount. ( 4. ) On the other hand, it has been argued by Shri Mukund Bhardwaj, learned public prosecutor that since a surety had died and the accused did not appear on the date of hearing on 25-9-99, the trial Court did not err in passing the impugned order directing the appellant to deposit surety amount. According to learned Public Prosecutor there is no merit in this appeal and same be dismissed ( 5. ) After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed ( 6. ) In order to appreciate the rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to re-write Section 446 of Cr.P C. which reads thus "S. 446(1). Where a bond under this Code is for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court and it is proved to the satisfaction of that Court, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, that the bond has been forfeited, (2) and (3)....................... Where a bond under this Code is for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court and it is proved to the satisfaction of that Court, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, that the bond has been forfeited, (2) and (3)....................... (4) Where a surety to a bond dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the bond." (Emphasis supplied) On bare perusal of sub-section (4) it is crystal clear that if the surety had died before the bond is forfeited his estate shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the bond. ( 7. ) On going through sub-section (4) of Section 446 of Cr.P.C. in the present case the maxim "cadit quaestio" can be said to be fully applicable and no argument is required. It is no more in dispute that the surety-Dheer Singh has breathed his last on 31-7-98 and the accused jumped the bail after his death i.e. on 25-9-99. Thus, before the bond was forfeited, the surety already died. Thus, the trial Court erred in law by passing the impugned order directing the appellant to deposit the surety amount. Indeed, the impugned order is de hors to subsection (4) of Section 446 of Cr.P.C. ( 8. ) Judging from all the angles, the impugned order cannot be allowed to remain stand and I have no option except to quash it and I accordingly do so. ( 9. ) Resultantly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The surety amount if deposited by the appellants may be refunded to them. Appeal allowed.