JUDGMENT 1. - This Revision Petition under section 397 read with section 401 CrPC is directed against the order dated 01st July 2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar in Cr. Appeal No.115/2011- dismissing appeal of the petitioner -surety against order dated 20.05.2011 made by the learned District Magistrate (City), Sriganganagar in Case No.04/2010, whereby in proceedings under section 446 CrPC in respect of accused-Natha Singh s/o Singara Singh, Rs. 90,000/- out of bail amount of rupees One Lac were ordered to be deposited with State treasure. 2. Briefly stating facts of the case are that accused-Natha Singh s/o Singara Singh was granted parole for 20 days. On behalf of the accused-prisoner Natha Singh, bail bond was submitted by present petitioner. The accused-prisoner was S. released on parole on 20.7.2010, who was to surrender back in the prison on 08.08.2010 but he did not surrender. Thereby, bailer and the accused-prisoner contravened the conditions of the parole. 3. Upon information by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sriganganagar to the District Magistrate to this effect, the Additional District Magistrate (City), Sriganganagar was directed to initiate proceedings under section 446 CrPC in the matter. Upon receipt of notice, surety-present petitioner appeared and submitted reply that the accused-prisoner Natha Singh dodged him and hide somewhere, therefore, minimum penalty may be imposed. After hearing the petitioner, learned Addition District Magistrate passed the order impugned, as aforesaid. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a poor person, after receipt of notice, he appeared before the Additional District Magistrate whenever ordered. The petitioner is a surety and learned Additional District Magistrate ought to have imposed minimum penalty by granting maximum remission. Learned appellate court also did not appreciate the position of the petitioner in right perspective and wrongly rejected the appeal. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1999 Cr.LR. (SC) 802, Mohammed Kunju and anr. v. State of Karnataka . 5. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the orders passed by learned courts below and submitted that this is case of misuse of liberty provided by statute and the accused. prisoner still could not be arrested nor has he surrendered. Therefore, order under section 446 CrPC passed by learned courts below are just and proper. 6. v. State of Karnataka . 5. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the orders passed by learned courts below and submitted that this is case of misuse of liberty provided by statute and the accused. prisoner still could not be arrested nor has he surrendered. Therefore, order under section 446 CrPC passed by learned courts below are just and proper. 6. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor and perused the orders impugned passed by the courts below. 7. Admittedly, the accused-prisoner misused the liberty of parole, granted to him on the basis of bail bond furnished by the petitioner-surety. The accused-prisoner has still not surrendered nor has been arrested. 8. Having considered the facts, circumstances and looking to the fact that the accused-prisoner is still absconding, I am not inclined to interfere in the orders passed by the courts below under section 446 CrPC. The decision cited by the learned counsel for petitioner, where accused was a foreign national and slipped out of the country, is not applicable in the present facts where accused-prisoner is son of the petitioner and petitioner stood surety for his surrender after completion of the period of parole. 9. In view of aforesaid discussion, present Revision Petition fails, being without merit and the same is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******