Judgment Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.-I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned order. 2. The case was fixed for recording the prosecution witnesses on 111.2005, 111.2005 and 111.2005. It is true that on 111.2005, the accused-petitioners were not present but they gave explanation when they surrendered before the concerned Court on 111.2005. At the time of considering the application for releasing the accused on bail, in the event of forfeiting of the bail bonds, which is before one day, it is obligatory duty of the trial Court to see the circumstances in right perspective. obviously, as per the order itself , the case was fixed for prosecution witnesses on 111.2005, 111.2005 and 111.2005 and after assigning reasons for their absence on 111.2005, the petitioners appeared before the trial Court on 111.2005 and explained the reasons for non-appearance on 111.2005. It is very strange that the explanation was not accepted by the trial Court, which is apparently not correct. Therefore, the order impugned dated 111.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 36/2005 is set aside and the application for bail filed before the trial Court by the accused-petitioners is allowed and the bail bonds, which were already furnished by the accused-petitioners before the trial Court prior to 111.2005 are restored. The accused-petitioners need not to file fresh bail bonds. The accused-petitioners shall be released immediately by the trial Court. 3. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this bail application filed under Section 439, CrPC is allowed.