THUNDICHI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOUBTING the correctness of the law declared by the learned Single Judge in the case of Usman v. State of Kerala (2005 (4) KLT 348) and Geetha v. State of Kerala (2006 (3) KLT 960), this matter has been referred to the Division Bench.

(2.) SINCE the question before us is as to the requirement of the procedure to be followed in respect of forfeiture of bond as per S. 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not necessary to go into the facts of the case.

(3.) UNDER S. 446 Cr. P. C, there are two types of bonds to be executed - (i) a bond under the Code for appearance or for production of property and (ii) any other bond under the Code. Both stand on the same footing so far as forfeiture is concerned. A bare reading of the section shows that it lays the procedure on forfeiture of such bond on the ground of violation of the conditions therein. It is not much in dispute that the object of taking surety/bond is for the purpose of ensuring availability of an accused before the court by the surety whenever the date of the trial is fixed. The surety solemnly undertakes before the Court to keep the accused present on all the trial dates. If such an undertaking is broken, the law itself provides for taking stringent steps against the surety as if he is instrumental in allowing the accused to remain absent/abscond.