The appellants, having been granted a stay of execution of sentence and released on bond, deliberately failed to attend court on multiple occasions despite being aware of their obligations. Their explanation for non-attendance was found implausible and lacking merit. The court held that persons on bond must take the initiative to follow up on their cases and are not entitled to be served with summons. The repeated absconding and failure to take steps towards the disposal of the appeal justified the cancellation of their bonds and the vacation of the stay order. Consequently, the sentences imposed by the trial court were to commence forthwith, with the period served prior to the stay being credited.