BUDHINATH TAD Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application is by a surety who has been called upon to pay the entire amount stipulated in the bail bond on forfeiture.

(2.) PANJU Ram, a resident of Delhi was convicted under Section 395, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years in Sessions Trial No. 11/34 of 70/69 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Puri. He preferred Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 1970 in this Court and was ordered to be released on bail for a sum of Rs. 5,0001/ - with two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Puri. On 16 -4 -1973 the Petitioner and one Purusottam Palai executed two surety bonds each for a sum of Rs. 5, 000/ - and accordingly the convict was released on bail. Ultimately, the Criminal Appeal was dismissed and notices were issued to the sureties to produce the convict. - But they filled to produce him on the date fixed. Proceedings under Section 514, Criminal Procedure were instituted against them for the enforcement of the bonds. A notice was caused to be served on the Petitioner to show cause why the penalty should not be realised from him. He appeared in Court and filed a show -cause denying execution of the bond. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge held an enquiry into the matter and on a consideration of the evidence came to the finding that the bond was duly executed - by the Petitioner and directed issue of a distress warrant against him for realisation of the entire amount of Rs. 5, 000/ -.

(3.) LAW does not require that the entire sum mentioned in the bond is to be paid automatically in case there is a breach of the terms thereof. Section 514(5), Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 provides: