POHAP SINGH BHAMARSINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind was trying Tejsingh accused, Pohap Singh petitioner stood surety and executed a bail bond for Rs. 2000/- for his appearance. On June 22, 1959 Tejsingh appeared in the Court but on the next date of hearing, which was June 23, he did not appear. Bail bond was forfeited and notice to show cause why the penalty should not be recovered from the surety was issued to him. On the 29th April the surety appeared and prayed that a non-bailable warrant be issued. That was done, The surety got him rearrested and the trial proceeded further. However, after hearing the surety, the trial Judge ordered recovery of Rs. 500/- from him.

(2.) IT is urged by Shri Nagarkar that bail bond could not be forfeited on the 2nd June nasmuch as no prior notice had been given to the surety. In my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted. It seems clear to me that Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code contemplates two Stages:

(3.) IT is urged with some vehemence that if a notice is not given to the surety he is deprived of a valuable right, namely, to show to the Court that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the accused on that particular day. I see no such difficulty, because at the second stage when the notice is given to the surety he can satisfy the Court of that fact When the surety appears in answer to the notice to show cause the Court can determine whether the cause shown is sufficient. If the court comes to the conclusion that the cause was sufficient for non-appearance it is empowered to accept it and to order that the penalty shall not be paid. It was faintly suggested to mo that under Clause 5 of Section 514, the Court has merely the discretion to remit only a portion of the penalty, but not the whole. In my opinion, this is misreading the section. On being satisfied that the absence of the accused was due to circumstances beyond his control, in spite of the forfeiture of the bond, the Court has power to direct that no penalty shall be re-covered. In my judgment, therefore, no evidence is necessary before ordering forfeiture of the bond for appearance, when the accused does not appear.