A surety bond is unenforceable without a corresponding personal bond from the accused, as per S. 499 CrPC.

1. This is a revision against the order of the District Magistrate dismissing the appeal petition filed under S. 515 CrPC by which the District Magistrate confirmed the order of the Munsif - Magistrate, Dharmanagar forfeiting the two bail bonds given by the petitioner as surety for two of the accused persons in G. R. case No. 14 of 1957 in which they were charged under S. 324 IPC and issuing distress warrant for payment of the amount so forfeited.

2. The petitioner is a pleader practising in Dharmanagar Courts. He stood surety for the two accused Muchabbir Ali and Taleb Ali in the above case and he executed two surely bonds on 05/12/1958 agreeing to produce them in Courts on the dates to which the case was posted. On 08/05/1959 Muchabbir Ali and Taleb Ali were absent in Court and it was stated for the prosecution that they had proceeded to Pakistan.
It was, however, mentioned for the surety that they were ill and that they would be produced at the next hearing on 20/06/1959. On 20/06/1959 also they were absent and it was admitted by the surety that they had left for Pakistan. Thereupon the Court issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why the bail bonds should not be forfeited.

3. On 23/07/1959 the petitioner filed a petition stating that the two accused persons were absent and that he was in search of them and wanted one month's time to produce them. This petition was taken up on 31/07/1959 to which date the case had been posted and the learned Magistrate passed an order forfeiting the bail bonds and calling upon the surety to pay the amounts forfeited within 7 days and the case was posted to 05/09/1959. Fresh show cause notice under S. 514 CrPC was also given to the petitioner after forfeiting the bonds.

4. On 20/08/1959 the petitioner filed another petition stating that he was not in a position to produce the two accused persons and praying that a nominal amount may be forfeited and that he may be excused from paying the balance amounts under the bail bonds. The Court rejected the petition on 21/08/1959 and directed him to pay the entire amount. Again on 05/09/1959 a third petition was filed by the petitioner to relieve him against the forfeiture of the bail bonds and to accept a nominal amount, but that petition was also rejected by the Court stating that it did not deserve any consideration.
Then the petitioner filed an appeal to District Magistrate for cancellation of the order of the Munsiff - Magistrate. On the date to which the appeal was posted namely, 22/12/1959 the petitioner was absent and the District Magistrate passed an order after perusal of the record that he did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court and that the appeal was dismissed.

5. In revision it is now contended that the learned Magistrate did not observe the provisions of S. 514 CrPC in forfeiting the bail bonds and in directing the petitioner to pay the amount. It was stated that the learned Magistrate has not recorded the grounds for the forfeiture showing the proof that the bonds were forfeited and that the order forfeiting the bonds was, therefore, irregular, do not find any irregularity in the order.
In the case of a bond for appearance of the accused person before Court, the very fact that the accused person did not appear being known to the Court and to the surety, no further grounds for the proof of that fact are necessary and the bond can be straightway forfeited and there is nothing irregular in the Court doing so.

6. It was next stated that the show cause notice required under S