The provisions of S. 502, Cr. P. C. are not conditions precedent for the acceptance of a fresh surety in place of the earlier one.

Headnote:
BAIL - SURETY BOND - ACCEPTANCE OF FRESH SURETY - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - S. 502, CR. P. C. - S. 499, CR. P. C. - S. 500, CR. P. C. - S. 501, CR. P. C. - FORM NO. XLII, SCHEDULE V, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Bekaru Singh, stood surety for Ram Narain in a criminal case. Ram Narain failed to appear in court on several occasions, and the court forfeited the surety bond executed by Bekaru Singh. Bekaru Singh appealed against the forfeiture of his surety bond.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Magistrate was not required to issue a warrant for the arrest of Ram Narain when Safir Hussain applied for the discharge of his surety bond. The court also held that the Magistrate could accept Bekaru Singh's surety bond without first taking action under S. 502, Cr. P. C. The court further held that Bekaru Singh's surety bond was effective and legal even though it was not executed on the same sheet of paper as Ram Narain's personal bond.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate was required to issue a warrant for the arrest of Ram Narain when Safir Hussain applied for the discharge of his surety bond? 2. Whether the Magistrate could accept Bekaru Singh's surety bond without first taking action under S. 502, Cr. P. C.? 3. Whether Bekaru Singh's surety bond was effective and legal even though it was not executed on the same sheet of paper as Ram Narain's personal bond?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of S. 502, Cr. P. C. are meant for the continuity of the surety bond on the basis of which an accused has been released on bail till such time that the accused is before the Court and for taking further action in case the accused desires to offer another security in place of the one who is to be discharged. They are not conditions precedent for the acceptance of a fresh surety in place of the earlier one. 2. Sub-section (1) of S. 499, Cr. P. C. provides that before any person is released on bail a bond must be executed by such person and bonds be also execute by sureties for the attendance of that person in Court. Sub-section (3) of S. 499 is: "(3) For the purpose of determining whether the sureties are sufficient, the Court may, if it so thinks fit, accept affidavits in proof of the facts contained therein relating to the sufficiency of the sureties or may make such further enquiry as it deems necessary." When. Bekaru furnished the surety bond he also filed an affidavit stating therein that the house mentioned in the surety bond was Worth over 40,000 Sri Ahmad Husain, Vakil, certified that Bekaru possessed sufficient property to stand surety for Rs. 40,000.In the circumstances the Magistrate could accept Bekaru s surety bond. Of course the Magistrate could make further enquiry as well and it was for the purpose of further enquiry that he ordered verification from the Tehsil. Bekaru s bond, in our opinion, was accepted on July 9, subject to further orders on the receipt of the Tehsil report. 3. The mere fact that Form No. XLII, Schedule V, Criminal Procedure Code, prints the contents of the two bonds, one to be executed by the accused and the other by the surety, together, does not mean that both these bonds should be on the same sheet of paper.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the forfeiture of Bekaru Singh's surety bond.

Judgment

RAGRUBAR DAYAL, J. : One Ram Narain was ordered by the High Court of Allahabad, on June 9, 1958, to furnish a personal bond for a lakh of rupees and three sureties, two in the sum of Rs 40,000 each and one in the sum of Rs. 20,000 in respect of the case against him for having committed criminal breach of trust with respect to the funds of the Pikaura Co-operative Society. he was to furnish the personal bond and the sureties with three weeks from the date of the order. It was further ordered:

"The applicant should furnish the personal bond and sureties as directed above within three weeks from today and during that period be will not be arrested. If he does not furnish the bonds and sureties within this period he will be liable to be re-arrested and detained till the necessary bonds and sureties are furnished."

2. It may be mentioned that Ram Narain had previously furnished a personal bond and sureties in connection with the embezzlement alleged to have been committed by him and that the necessity for a fresh order for furnishing personal bond and sureties arose on account of the police submitting more than one charge-sheet with respect to the amount embezzled and it was felt that the original security furnished might not be effective

3. On June 26, 1958, Rain Narain executed a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 and offered the required sureties. Kashi stood Surety for Rs. 40,000, Safir Hussam for Rs. 40,000 and Smt. Sana for Rs. 20,000 respectively. The surety bond by Safir Hussain was not duly verified as he was in hospital at that time, but when it was put up to Safir Hussein for verification on July 12, 1958 he refused to verify it.

4. Prior to this, on July 7, 1958, Safir Hussain filed an application before the Magistrate praying that his surety bonds in connection with the embzzlement of Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 80,000 be cancelled. Ram Narain was present in Court that day. No particular order was passed on this application of Safir Hussain.

5. On July 9, 1958, an application on behalf of Ram Narain was filed stating that Bekaru s surety be accepted in place of Safir Hussain surety. Bekaru filed the surety bond offering himself to stand surety for Rs. 40,000 for Ram Narain s appearance in Court. He was identified by Sri Ahead Hussain, Vakil who certified that Bekaru Singh possessed sufficient property to stand surety for Rs. 40,000. The Magistrate ordered for the verification from the Tehsil and on receipt of the report from the Tehsil, accepted the bond on August 20, 1958. The Tehsil. report, however, indicated that the house mentioned in the surety bond and alleged to be worth Rs. 80.000 was estimated to be worth Rs. 16,075.

6. The police charge-sheet in the case appears to have reached the Court on August 20, 1958, when summons for the appearance of Ram Narain was ordered to be issued for September 1, 1958. The summons was not served. When Ram Narain did not appear on September, 1,1958, September 9, and September 23, the Court, on September 24, ordered action under fist 87 and 88 Cr. P. C. against him and the issue of notices to the sureties to produce him in Court. When he did not appear in Court on October 29, the Court forfeited the personal bond executed by Ram Narain and the bail bonds executed by the sureties and ordered issue of notices to the sureties to pay the penalty or show cause as to why the amount he not recovered from them. Bekaru objected to the forfeiture of his surety bond On April 20, 1959, the objection was disallowed and the learned judicial officer ordered that the amount of Rs. 40,000 be recovered from his movable property through attachment and sale. Bekaru appealed but his appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. His revision application to the High Court was also dismissed. He has preferred this appeal by special leave.

7. The main contention for the appellant is that the learned Magistrate should not have accepted Bekaru Singh s surety bond without first taking action contemplated by sub-s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document