RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jorma who was convicted by the learned Session's Judge Dehradun under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, was directed by the High Court of Allahabad to be released on bail on furnishing bail to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Dehradun. The District Magistrate (Judicial) Dehradun ordered Jorma to execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 and to furnish two sureties in a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 each. Ram Lal the present appellant was one of the persons who executed a surety bond. Another, Abdul Jabbar, also executed a surety bond. By some oversight no personal bond was taken from Jorma nor was his signature taken on the reverse of the bonds executed by the two sureties as appears to have been usually done. Jorma jumped bail and the sureties were unable to produce him when required to do so. The Distirct Magistrate, Dehradun, therefore, forfeited the surety bonds and issued a warrant of attachment against the sureties under S. 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Allahabad against the order of forfeiture. Before the High Court it was submitted that the surety bond executed by the appellant could not be forfeited when no personal bond had been taken from the accused who had been released on bail. The High Court overruled the submission of the appellant and confirmed the order of forfeiture. The appellant has filed this appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

(2.) Shri Shiv Pujan Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the question of forfeiting the surety bond for the failure of the accused to appear would arise only if the accused himself had executed a personal bond for his appearance. He submitted that someone must be primarily bound before the surety could be bound and his bond forfeited. He invited our attention to S. 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and form No. 42 of the forms in Schedule V. He relied on the decision in Brahma Nand Misra v. Emperor, AIR 1939 All 682 and Sailesh Chandra v. The State, AIR 1963 Cal 309 A reference was also made to Bekaru Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 430. On the ohter hand the learned Counsel for the State urged that the bond to be executed by the surety was independent of the bond to be executed by the accused and there was no impediment in the way of the forfeiture of the surety bond even in the absence of a personal bond executed by the accused. He relied upon the decisions in Abdul Aziz v. Emperor, AIR 1946 All 116 and Mewa Ram v. State, AIR 1953 All 481.

(3.) Section 499 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code 1898 was in the following terms:-