JUDGMENT : V.K. Mohanan, J. 1. The appellants are sureties for the second accused in SC No. 159/2004 of the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Ad hoc), Mavelikara. The above Sessions Case is instituted alleging offence under the provisions of the Abkari Act against accused Nos.1 and 2 in which the appellants stood as sureties for the second accused. By the impugned order dated 23/06/2007 in MC No. 9 of 2007 in SC No. 159 of 2004, the Court below forfeited the bail bond and started MC and issued distress warrant against the appellants. It is the above order challenged in this appeal. 2. I have heard the Sri R. Padmakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The details which I mentioned above are not from the order impugned in this appeal. From the order what discernible is that notices ware issued to the appellants and they have entered appearance through counsel. Nothing is discernible from the order as to what was the prayer of the petitioners in their application and what was the reason for rejecting such prayer. No reasons are assigned for forfeiting the bail bond. 4. This Court in two separate decisions, i.e., Rajan v. State of Kerala 2006KHC 1434 : 2006 (4) KLT 429 : 2006 (3) KLJ 271 : ILR 2006 (4) Ker. 265 : 2006 (2) KLD 525 : 2007 CriLJ 257 and Geetha v. State of Kerala 2006 KHC 1049 : 2006 (3) KLT 960 : ILR 2006 (3) Ker. 830 : 2006 (3) KLJ 364., has categorically stated about the requirement of recording of grounds of proof of satisfaction for the forfeiture of the bond and to show cause why the sureties shall not pay penalty. In the above decisions it is also held that forfeiture of bond will be only in case where there is wilful default on the part of the accused to appear in Court and then only the question of penalty will arise. While the above decisions are governing the field, the impugned order contains no details for forfeiting the bond and imposing penalty against the appellants sureties. As indicated earlier, the order does not show the request of the appellants. While the above decisions are governing the field, the impugned order contains no details for forfeiting the bond and imposing penalty against the appellants sureties. As indicated earlier, the order does not show the request of the appellants. It is also not discernible from the order as to whether, before the date of the order, proper opportunities were given to the appellants for giving their explanation. Therefore, the impugned order is tainted with arbitrariness and absolutely unsustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. In the result, this appeal is allowed, setting aside the order dated 23rd June, 2007 in MC No. 9 of 2007, in SC No. 159 of 2004 of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Ad hoc), Mavelikara and remanding the matter to the said Court for fresh disposal, in accordance with the decisions of this Court referred to above. The appellants are directed to appear before the Court below on 15/03/2010 on which date, the Court below is directed to take up MC No. 9 of 2007 in SC No. 159 of 2004 and proceed to dispose of the same in the light of the decisions and in accordance with the law and procedure and ensuring ample opportunities to the appellants to raise their objection, if any. The Cri. Appeal is disposed of as above.