A bond executed by a surety for the production of an accused in Court is valid even if no bond is taken from the accused himself.

Jamuar, J.

1. This application has been referred to a Division Bench, as its decision involves questions of some importance.

2. The facts are simple. On the 6th June, 1952, the Sub-Inspector of Gopalpur Police Station reported for action under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against some persons of the first party as also against petitioners 1 to 13 as the second party. On the next day, the Subdivisional Magistrate of Bhagalpur drew up proceedings accordingly. We are concerned in this application with petitioners 1 to 13 who were members of the second party. Bailable warrants of arrest were issued for the appearance of these petitioners before him on the 26th June, 1952. These warrants are said to have been served upon these petitioners, and were returned on the 17th June, 1952, At this stage, it should be stated that petitioner No. 14, Janardan Prasad Choudhary, executed a bond standing as surety for the production of four out of petitioners 1 to 13 in the Court of the Magistrate an the 26th June, 1952, and he stated in this bond that "If I fail to produce them I shall pay to the Government rupees one thousand for each accused as fine". Upon this bond, those four petitioners also put their signatures, presumably, by way of attestation.

3. Petitioners 1 to 13, however, did not appear before the Magistrate on the 26th June, 1952, as required. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, accordingly, took proceedings under Sec. 514, Criminal Procedure Code, for the forfeiture of the bonds. All the fourteen petitioners showed cause before the Magistrate, which was not accepted as satisfactory. The bond executed by petitioner No. 14, Janardan Prasad Choudhary, the bailor for four of the other petitioners, was ordered to be forfeited, and he was ordered to pay a penalty of Rs. 200.00 in respect of each of the four persons for whom he had stood surety. The other thirteen petitioners, against whom bailable warrants of arrest had been issued, were also ordered to pay a penalty of Rs. 200.00 each for having failed to appear in Court on the date fixed.

4. The points raised in support of this application were twofold: it was argued, in the first place, that the thirteen petitioners, against whom bailable warrants of arrest had been issued, had executed no bond at all which could be forfeited, nor had they given any undertaking to appear in the. Court of the Magistrate on the 26th June, 1952, and that, therefore, in these circumstances, the order of the learned Magistrate to the effect that they should pay a penalty of Rs. 200.00 each for their non-appearance in Court on the date fixed is invalid and illegal; and, in the second place, that, as there was no valid bond or undertaking given by those thirteen petitioners, there could have been no valid bond taken from the surety of any of them for his production in Court. The second question is referable in the present case to petitioner No. 14, the bailor, only.

5. So far as the first question is concerned, it affects the order passed by the Magistrate against petitioners 1 to 13. Under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is provided that, whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the court by which a bond under this Code has been taken, or, when the bond is for appearance before a Court, to the satisfaction of sucn Court, that such 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, and by Sub-section (5) the Court has been given discretion to remit any portion of the penalty mentioned in the bond & enforce payment in part only. From the record of this case, it nowhere appears that any bond was executed by any of the first thirteen petitioners for their appearance in Court. What has happened is that the sureties executed bonds, and the persons for whom they stood surety put their signatures upon the bonds. In this