JAGANNATH MANDHATA AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the accused persons excepting accused Pranakrushna Jena were present in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, on 6 -12 -]965. Petitioners Jagannath Mandhata and Ramachandra Samal were bailors for accused Pranakrushna Jena. Each of the accused had been directed to give bail for Rs. 200/ - only. The Petitioners executed a surety bond on 3 -11 -1965 for Rs. 200/ -. The terms of the bond were that the bailbond would be forfeited if the accused was absent, or if the securities did not produce the accused in the Court on the date fixed. Out of the to bailors Ramachandra did not attend Court and Jagannath filed an application for adjourning the case on the ground that accused Pranakrushna was bed -ridden with double pneumonia and could not attend the Court on that day. The application for time was rejected on the very day, the bail bond of accused Pranakrushna was cancelled and the amount under the bond executed by the two bailors was forfeited to the State. A non bailable warrant was issued for the production of accused Pranakrushna on 8.12.1965. Against this order passed on 5 -12 -1965, the revision has been filed.

(2.) MR . Jena advanced a number of contentions challenging the legality of the order. One of the grounds was that before forfeiting the bail bond the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have given notice to the bailors as to why the amount under the bond should not be forfeited, and if the latter failed to show came, then only the Court would proceed to recover the money. Though the learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the learned advocate for the accused and one of the bailors, no opportunity was given to the bailors to show sufficient cause, and as such, the order of forfeiture is illegal.

(3.) THE aforesaid provisions clearly show that it is essential to give notice to the bailors as to why the amount under the bond should not) be paid before they become liable to pay the amount of the bond forfeited. If the bailors failed to show sufficient cause, the Court could proceed to recover the money. This is concluded by Golom Mehdi v. State of Rajasthan1.