DINA NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application directed against the order of the Sessions Judge forfeiting the security of Dina Nath surety to the extent of Rs. 500 for non-appearance of Vishwa Nath, accused appellant, in the Court of Sessions Judge on the date fixed for hearing of the appeal.

(2.) It appears that Vishwa Nath accused was convicted by the Munsiff Magistrate, Jammu, under section 379, R. P. C. and was sentenced to under go two months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 100. He went up in appeal and during the pendency of the appeal an application for grant of bail was moved on his behalf. The learned Sessions Judge released the accused on bail on execution of a bail bond by Dina Nath surety in the amount of Rs. 500. The accused did not appear before the appellate Court on 26th June, 1963 which was the date fixed for hearing of the appeal. The appeal was heard in his absence and he was acquitted. A notice was issued to the surety to show cause why the bail bond furnished by him be not forfeited. Dina Nath surety filed various objections and among them he stated that the accused's mother was seriously ill and therefore he could not appear before the Court on the 26th June, 1963 and that as the accused was acquitted he prayed that he be absolved from the liability under the bond These objections did not find favour with the learned Sessions Judge and the bond was forfeited in the full amount of Rs. 500. Against this order the surety has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that bail proceedings are special proceedings about which there are specific provisions in the Code and they must be strictly followed. Time and place at which the accused has to appear must be mentioned in the bond and if they are not clearly mentioned the bond is not enforceable. It is further argued that the accused must sign the surety bond otherwise it is not enforceable against the surety. Section 499 (1), Cr. P. C. reads as under : -