JUDGMENT : Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. The accused-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 86 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18.10.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1 (Fast Track), Kota in Criminal Misc. Case No.38/2004 whereby the learned Court below dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 85 (3) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to release and restore the attached property to him. 2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that appellant was convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC by the Court below vide judgment and order dated 24.8.2002 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and he was sent to Central Jail, Kota to serve the sentence so passed. D.B. Criminal Appeal No.1150/2002 came to be filed by the appellant against the aforesaid judgment and order before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant filed D.B. Criminal Misc. (Suspension of Sentence) Application No.8/2003 with a prayer to release him on interim bail which was allowed by the Division Bench vide order dated 13.1.2003 and the appellant was ordered to be released on interim bail for a period of two weeks. In compliance of the aforesaid order the appellant was released on 15.1.2003 and he was to surrender before the jail on 28.1.2003 after availing the benefit of interim bail so granted to him but he did not surrender. When the appellant did not comply the order of interim bail, proceeding under Section 446 Cr.P.C. was initiated against him and on a finding that he is deliberately avoiding the service of arrest warrant upon him, proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 were also initiated against him and he was declared absconder and standing warrant of arrest was issued against him and his agriculture land was attached. It is to be noted that after attachment of agriculture land of the appellant, mutation of the same was opened by Collector, Kota in favour of the State Government and ultimately appellant surrendered before the trial Court on 17.8.2004. 3. During the course of hearing of this appeal, it was stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that D.B. Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant was subsequently allowed by the High Court and he has been acquitted for the offence for which he was convicted and sentenced by the Court below. 3. During the course of hearing of this appeal, it was stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that D.B. Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant was subsequently allowed by the High Court and he has been acquitted for the offence for which he was convicted and sentenced by the Court below. An application under Section 85 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the appellant before the Court below with a prayer that as he has surrendered before the Court, his agriculture land which was attached may be released and restored back to him. Learned Court below after considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 18.10.2004. 4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. were enacted to secure the presence of an accused and once the said purpose is achieved, the attachment shall be withdrawn and at the most cost incurred by the State Government can be recovered from the accused. It was further submitted that although in the present case appellant did not surrender on 28.1.2003 after availing benefit of interim bail granted to him by the High Court and consequently, his agriculture land was attached under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. but once he appeared before the Court below on 17.8.2004 the purpose of attachment of property was achieved and as a consequence thereof it was liable to be released and handed over to the appellant but learned trial Court ignoring and overlooking the well settled legal position prevalent in this regard dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the appellant. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defending the impugned order, submitted that in the present case the attached property cannot be released by the reason that appellant did not surrender within the prescribed period. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimalben Ajithai Patel v. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel & Ors. reported in 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 259 has held that : "The provisions contained in Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were put on the statute book for certain purpose. It was enacted to secure the presence of the accused. Once the said purpose is achieved, the attachment shall be withdrawn. Even the property which was attached, should be restored. It was enacted to secure the presence of the accused. Once the said purpose is achieved, the attachment shall be withdrawn. Even the property which was attached, should be restored. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not warrant sale of the property despite the fact that the absconding accused had surrendered and obtained bail. Once he surrenders before the Court and the Standing Warrants cancelled, he is no longer an absconder. The purpose of attaching the property comes to an end. It is to be released subject to the provisions of the Code. Securing the attendance of an absconding accused, is a matter between the State and the accused." 7. In view of the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the submissions made on behalf of the appellant is tenable in law and the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside subject to the condition that cost and expenditure incurred by the State Government for attachment and subsequent maintenance of the agriculture land of the appellant is liable to be recoverable from the appellant in accordance with law. 8. Consequently, the order dated 18.10.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1 (Fast Track), Kota in Criminal Misc. Case No.38/2004 is quashed and set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with the aforesaid condition. As the appeal itself has been decided, the second stay application No.1187/2014 does not survive and the same is disposed of.