Back
1979 Supreme(All) 200
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.P. Saxena, J.
Ranjit Singh
Versus
State
Decided On : 30 March 1979
Surety bonds furnished by sureties for the attendance of an accused person in court are enforceable even if there is no personal bond by the accused.
Headnote:
BAIL BOND - FORFEITURE - SECTION 499(1) AND 514 CRPC - SURETY BOND ENFORCEABLE EVEN IN ABSENCE OF PERSONAL BOND BY ACCUSED - NO REDUCTION OF PENALTY.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, Boota Singh, was released on parole for three months on the condition that he would furnish sureties for his attendance in court. The revisionist and another person stood sureties for Boota Singh and undertook to produce him on the expiry of the parole period. However, Boota Singh failed to appear on the said date and the sureties failed to produce him despite notices. The Chief Judicial Magistrate forfeited the surety bonds and ordered the realization of the penalty amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the surety bonds were enforceable even though there was no personal bond by the accused. The court also held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had rightly forfeited the surety bonds and ordered the realization of the penalty amount.
Issues: 1. Whether the surety bonds were enforceable in the absence of a personal bond by the accused? 2. Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate had rightly forfeited the surety bonds and ordered the realization of the penalty amount?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on several precedents of this Court holding that the surety bonds can be enforced even if there is no bond by the accused. The court held that the surety does not guarantee the payment of any sum of money by the person accused who is released on bail but guarantees the attendance of that person. 2. The court held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had rightly forfeited the surety bonds and ordered the realization of the penalty amount as the sureties had failed to produce the accused despite notices.
Final Decision: The revision application was rejected.
( 1 ) RANIJT Singh has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 28-10-1976 passed by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that on 9-8-1974 the Supreme Court of India in Criminal Misc. Petn. No. 1074 of 1974 Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1972 released Boota Singh son of Kakka Singh on parole for a period of three months. The order read as follows: Boota Singh son of Kakka Singh be released on parole for a period of three months on the ground of ill health on his furnishing to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Nainital and this Court doth further order that this order be punctually observed and earned into execution by all concerned.
( 3 ) AS Boota Singh was confined in Haldwani Jail the order was received by the District Magistrate, Nainital on 12-8-1974. On 17-8-1974 the counsel for Boota Singh moved an application before the Sessions Judge, Nainital for directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate Nainital, to release the accused on bail. On the same day the learned Sessions Judge directed that the bonds be furnished to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, as the District Magistrate had no power under the new Code. On 19-8-1974 the Chief Judicial Magistrate appears to have passed the following order: Let Boota Singh furnish two local and reliable sureties for Rs. 5,000/- each and a personal bond for the like sum for release on parole for three months as ordered.
( 4 ) ON the same day i. e. 19-8-1974 the revisionist and Amar Singh stood sureties for Boota Singh and undertook to produce him on 1811-1974 i. e. on the expiry of three months from 19-8-1974; failing which they undertook to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/-each to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Boota Singh was released from Haldwani jail but did not appear on 18-11-1974. On 19-11-1974 the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed a bailable warrant of arrest to be issued against him and further ordered that notice be sent to his sureties to produce him on 912-1974. On this date neither Boota Singh nor his sureties put in their appearance, hence the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order forfeiting surety bonds; notices under Section 460 Cr. P. C. were issued to the sureties for 21-1-75. In the meantime one of the sureties namely Amar Singh appeared and moved an application on his own behalf as well as on behalf of the other surety stating that Boota Singh had surrendered himself in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, Punjab in a case under Section 411 I. P. C. He, therefore, expressed his inability to produce Boota Singh as he was detained in the jail. The Chief Judicial Magistrate Nainital sent a letter and wireless message to the superintendent District Jail, Kapurthala and to the Chief Judicial Magistrate of that place for detaining Boota Singh and to produce him before the Delhi High Court in appeal No. 22 of 1968 Delhi Administration v. Boota Singh Ors. as desired by that court. The Superintendent sub-jail Kapurthala by his letter dated 20-1-1975 informed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, that Boota Singh had been released on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 26-12-1974 and was not confined in jail. On 21-1-75 the sureties moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital stating that they could not produce Boota Singh as the latter was admitted in the Government Hospital, Kapurthala on account of heart trouble and he was taken into custody on 24-12-1974. They, therefore, prayed that they may be discharged. This application came up for hearing on 6-2 1975 when the sureties gave another application to the effect that Boota Singh was already released from the jail and they did not know his whereabouts and prayed for one months time to produce him. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, granted time up to 10-2-1975 but none turned up. The sureties also failed to show any cause why the amount of the bond be not realised from the
