JUDGMENT Ajai Lamba, J. (Oral).:- This appeal has been filed in challenge to order dated 3.8.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. 2. It transpires that petitioner namely, Gopal Kaur, stood surety for accused Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi son of Dara Singh at the point in time when the said person was allowed bail. Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi (accused) was required to appear before the Trial Court. Gurpreet Singh however was lodged in District Jail, Kapurthala in another case bearing FIR No.7 dated 16.1.2008 under Sections 395, 342 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act registered with Police Station, Kotwali, Kapurthala. Warrants of arrest of Gurpreet Singh were issued. The same were received unexecuted with the report that Gurpreet Singh is lodged in Jail in the case noticed above. It is thereafter that the Trial Court issued production warrant of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi for 10.9.2009. 3. It seems that in the meantime, notice to surety was issued under Section 446 Cr.P.C. Gopal Kaur, however, she did not put in appearance. The Trial Court for not appearance of Gopal Kaur in Court on the scheduled date, imposed penalty of Rs.40,000/- i.e. the amount for which surety bond had been executed. Vide the impugned order, warrants of attachment of property of Gopal Kaur have also been issued. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on 3.8.2009, the petitioner could not appear before the Trial Court on account of demise of her son namely Partap. 5. I have considered the facts and circumstances. 6. From the impugned order itself, it is gathered that Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi (accused) could not appear because he was lodged in jail in another case. In such circumstances, the Court was required to issue production warrant for summoning him. In regard to appearance of petitioner, her son had died and therefore, circumstances were such that compassion was required to be shown. 7. Be that as it may, Gopal Kaur was summoned in the context of non appearance of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi for whom she stood surety. Gurpreet Singh himself having been lodged in jail, could not put in appearance and therefore malafide conduct of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi or conduct showing intention to abscond cannot be gathered. 8. 7. Be that as it may, Gopal Kaur was summoned in the context of non appearance of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi for whom she stood surety. Gurpreet Singh himself having been lodged in jail, could not put in appearance and therefore malafide conduct of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi or conduct showing intention to abscond cannot be gathered. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court had no occasion to impose penalty of Rs.40,000/- on the person of the petitioner. 9. The petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 3.8.2009 is hereby set aside. ----------------