RAHAT ALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order of the Sessions Judge forfeiting the sureties of the accused who did not appear before the Court when he was trying the case. It appears that the accused had given surety bond when he was released on bail in the Court of the Magistrate, but later on he was ordered to be re-leased on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 560/- each by the Sessions Judge. No further surety bond was executed by the applicant and the old surety bond continued. That was strictly not very correct and there should have been another surety bond executed by the accused.

(2.) The accused did not come on the date of hearing and appears to have migrated to Pakistan. Thereupon the sureties were asked to produce the accused. But they failed to produce the accused and, therefore, their sureties were forfeited, one of the sureties, Rabat All, has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) The contention of learned Counsel for the applicant is that there being no surety bond of the accused himself, the sureties cannot be asked to pay the amount. It was contended that the sureties are liable only in the secondary stage. First the bond of the accused should have been forfeited and thereafter the sureties called upon to produce the accused and if they failed then and only then their bonds should have been forfeited. If there was no proper bond of the accused or there was no forfeiture of the bond of the accused, the proceedings for forfeiture cannot be taken. Reliance was placed by learned Counsel on the decision of this Court in Brahma Nand Misra v. Emperor 41 Cri LJ 85 : AIR 1939 All 682 (A).