GOVINDA CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner (Gobinda Chandra Srichanar) has been declared to have forfeited the bail bond executed by him to ensure attendance of accused Bira Naik in Criminal Case No. 389, started by Maguni Biswal of Dhenkanal. On 161-1950, which was one of the dates of hearing, the accused Bira Naik did not attend the Court, and the petitioner, his bailor, fully alive to his responsibility made a representation to the Court that the non-appearing accused was ill. The learned Magistrate did not accept the story of illness but however, was forced to adjourn the case to 30-1-1950. On that date, the accused appeared, and the bailor too appeared and filed a petition asking to be released from the liability Govinda Chandra vs. State (04.08.1950 -ORIHC) Page 2 of 5 of bail bond. It appears from the record that one Banshi Naik executed a bail bond for Bira Naik on 3-3-1950. The petitioner was called upon to show cause why the surety bond should not be forfeited and the payment of Rs. 200 agreed under the bond to be paid in default of the accused's attendance in Court, should not be enforced.

(2.) Both the Courts below have disbelieved the story of Bira Naik's illness on 161-1950, and have found themselves not justified, on any reason whatsoever, to excuse the bailor from the liability.

(3.) Mr. K.N. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has attacked the proceeding as tainted with illegality. According to him, the suretyship should have, first of all, been forfeited, and then only he could have been called upon to show cause why payment of the amount undertaken should not be enforced. I do not quite follow this argument. If his argument is upheld it would mean that the surety bond should be forfeited without hearing the bailor. That can never be the intention of law. Before forfeiting the bond, the bailor should be given an opportunity to show cause. If he fails to satisfy the Magistrate as to the existence of any sufficient reason disabling him from fulfilling the terms of the bond, he is to be directed to pay. Mr. Das should maintain that at that stage he shall be given further opportunity to show cause. At present, I am not advised to express any opinion on this. But I find no irregularity in the proceeding.