dissenting.
In this case, bail was set at $100,000. A cash deposit of $100,000 was .made in lieu of bail. This deposit was subjected to an attachment appertinent to a civil action on February 24, 1987. This “bond” was revoked pursuant to I.C. 35 — 33—8—5(d)(3) on March 2, 1987, when Fadli, the defendant, failed to surrender his passport and was ordered arrested and held without bail. The State moved for revocation on March 31, 1987, which motion was not ruled upon. Revocation had, of course, previously occurred. On May 6, 1987, the defendant Fadli failed to appear for trial. On December 1, 1987, in proceedings supplemental to a civil judgment rendered against Fadli for injuries sustained as a result of conduct underlying the criminal charges, the trial court ruled that the cash deposit should be released to satisfy the judgment in the civil case.
At the time the cash deposit, or “bond,” was ordered revoked in March of 1987, there were no legal grounds upon which to declare such deposit or “bond” forfeited or *1043to declare a judgment for the State in that amount, as there had as yet been no failure of Fadli to appear before the court as ordered, a statutorily required condition for forfeiture. I.C. 35-33-8-7. At the time of revocation, the cash deposit was not subject to a declaration of forfeiture, ceased to operate as bail, and was the property of Fadli. The deposit was. therefore properly ordered subjected to attachment by creditors.
DICKSON, J., concurs.