JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner requests quashing of F.I.R. No. 446/2007, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction, registered for the offence under Section 229A Indian Penal Code. According to F.I.R., on 4.7.2007 at 11.30 A.M. a letter was received from the Court of ACJ (JD) JM stating that Case No. 236/2007 Kanhaiya Lal v. Pradeep for the offence of Section 138 of N.I. Act, is proceedings before the Court and accused Pradeep being on bail did not turn up in Court on 4.6.2007, so the case could not be proceeded with and accordingly accused Pradeep has committed offence punishable under Section 229A. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per F.I.R. itself, petitioner was released on bail on submission of surety, so provisions of Section 229A are not applicable. It is argued that offence under Section 229A can only be applicable if accused is released on bail or on bond without surety and has no application when released on surety. It is also argued that provisions of Section 229A are attracted only when accused without sufficient cause fails to appear and before lodging any such F.I.R., an opportunity of showing cause is to be afforded to accused. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed that sufficient reason, if any, is to be shown by the petitioner in course of trial. 4. Considered the arguments. 5. Section 229A Indian Penal Code. provides for prosecution of accused who being on bail without sufficient cause fails to appear in the Court. According to Section 229A "whoever, having been charged with an offence and released on bail or on bond without sureties, fails without sufficient cause (the burden of proving which shall lie upon him), to appear in Court in accordance with the terms of the bail or bond, shall be punished with imprisonment Out of the essential element for constitution of the offence under Section 229A is that release must be on bail or on bond without sureties. Among the words "on bail or on without sureties" are "without sureties". So it appears that if the person is released without sureties and then he absents without sufficient cause, then only the Section 229A is applicable. In this particular case, the accused-petitioner does not appear to have been released without sureties. Further petitioner absented on 4.6.2007 and F.I.R. is dated 5.6.2007 the next day of absence. Words "without sufficient cause though burden on him" cannot be altogether ignored. In this particular case, the accused-petitioner does not appear to have been released without sureties. Further petitioner absented on 4.6.2007 and F.I.R. is dated 5.6.2007 the next day of absence. Words "without sufficient cause though burden on him" cannot be altogether ignored. So, in the totality of the facts, provisions of Section 229A is not applicable here and the F.I.R. is to be quashed. Here in this case, from the F.I.R., it does not appear that petitioner was released on bond with sureties as petitioner is not released "with surety", the provision of Section 229A Indian Penal Code. can hardly be applicable and the F.I.R. is to be quashed solely oil this ground. Accordingly, the F.I.R. No. 446/2007 registered with the Police Station Hanurnangarh Junction for the offence under Section 229A Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed.Hence, the petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is allowed.Petition allowed. *******