Judgment : Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar, J. Heard Shri S.K.A. Rizvi, Advocate for the appellants and learned AGA for the State-Respondent. The instant appeal filed on behalf of sureties/appellants under Section 449(ii), Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 2.1.2016 passed by Shri M.K. Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bareilly in Criminal Case No.34 of 2015 (State Vs. Prem Kumar Singh) whereby surety bonds of the appellants were forfeited and recovery warrants amounting Rs.50,000/- were issued. The relevant facts for the present purpose are as under:- That the appellants stood sureties for accused Ravi in Sessions Trial No.18 of 2011, P.S. Faridpur, District Bareilly and they had filed surety bonds of Rs.50,000/- for his appearance before the Court. When Ravi did not appear before the Court, notices were issued to the appellants to produce the accused before the Court on 13.11.2015. The appellants produced him on the stated date before the Court, but they were issued notices, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit. Though the appellants were personally present on 2.1.2016, but the orderly of the Court did not allow them to enter the Court and consequently, recovery warrants were issued against them without providing opportunity of hearing and ignoring the fact that the appellants had produced the accused before the Court and discharged their obligation. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the present case statutory provision contained in Section 446(1), Cr.P.C. has been contravened where it provides that first the bonds would be forfeited and thereafter notices to pay the penalty or show cause against the recovery of bail amount, would be issued. According to him, in the present case the learned trial Judge did not do the same and on the same day he passed both the orders. His next argument is that on the record the information was available that the appellants had produced the accused in pursuance of the notices, therefore, imposition of full amount of bond amount is wholly illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. He further submits that rules of natural justice have been violated and the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be set aside. On behalf of the State learned AGA has submitted that it is not disputed that accused Ravi defaulted, therefore, condition of the bond was breached. Forfeiture of the surety bonds was in accordance with law. Recovery pursuant thereto is also legally maintainable. On behalf of the State learned AGA has submitted that it is not disputed that accused Ravi defaulted, therefore, condition of the bond was breached. Forfeiture of the surety bonds was in accordance with law. Recovery pursuant thereto is also legally maintainable. First, I would like to produce sub-section 1 of Section 446, Cr.P.C., which reads as under:- 446. Procedure when bond has been forfeited.-(1)Where a bond under this Code is for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court and it is proved to the satisfaction of that Court or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, that the bond has been forfeited, or where, in respect of any other bond under this Code, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which the bond was taken, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, or of the Court of any Magistrate of the first class, that the bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid. Explanation - A condition in a bond for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court shall be construed as including a condition for appearance, or as the case may be, for production of property, before any Court to which the case may subsequently be transferred. Afore-quoted sub-section reveals that forfeiture of the bond has to precede the issue of notice under Section 446, Cr.P.C. Impugned order dated 2.1.2016 is a consolidated order whereby simultaneously on non-appearance of accused Ravi surety bonds were forfeited and recovery warrant for the surety amount were issued though it is true that in the order it has noticed that notices were issued to the appellants and they were served personally only thereafter bonds were forfeited. This shows that bail bonds were prior to issue of notices. This procedure is not in accordance with the provision quoted hereinabove. From the perusal of the annexure-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit I also find that notices under Section 446, Cr.P.C. issued to the appellants were not in proper form. In Schedule 2 of the Cr.P.C. Form No.48 has been given, which prescribes the format in which notice is required to be given to the surety. From the perusal of the annexure-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit I also find that notices under Section 446, Cr.P.C. issued to the appellants were not in proper form. In Schedule 2 of the Cr.P.C. Form No.48 has been given, which prescribes the format in which notice is required to be given to the surety. The notice issued by the learned trial Judge is not in the proper format, as referred above. Since the order suffers illegality on two score, I am not able to accept the arguments advanced by the learned AGA and in my opinion, the appeal has substance and it deserves to be allowed. The question arises whether to remand the matter or simply quash the impugned order. In the case of Malkhan Singh Vs. State, AIR 1969 All 557 , it has been observed that in appeal filed under Section 449, Cr.P.C. the matter cannot be remanded back, therefore, impugned order has to be quashed. Resultantly, appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 2.1.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bareilly in Case No.34/2015 (State Vs. Prem Kumar Singh) is set aside with the observation that this order would not preclude the learned trial Court to initiate the proceedings de novo in this regard. ——————