A J ANAND (MAJOR) Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned: Sessions Judge, Srinagar dated 1 -7 -67 whereby the bail bond given by the appellant in favour of one Dalip Singh, appellant before the learned Sessions Judge, was confiscated and the appellant directed to, pay Rs. 800/ -

(2.) THE appellants counsel has argued that the bail -bond was not in accordance with law there was no default on the part of the appellant, therefore the order of the learned Sessions Judge is bad.

(3.) MR . Ishwar Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants first argument is that the bail bond which recites that the appellant has been directed to furnish security in the amount of Rs. 1000/ -. The surety therefore undertakes that till the disposal of the case, the appellant Dalip Singh will be present on every hearing; if the surety, will pay Rs 1000/ - as penalty. According to Mr. Ishwar Singh this is not a proper form of a bail bond. The form if a bail bond is given in Schedule 5/V FORM XLII and it states that "the surety declares the accused or the appellant shall attend the court on every day of the case and should he fail to appear or made default therein, the surety binds himself to forfeit the amount of the bail bond to the Government. This in nutshell is the form of the bond. It is no doubt true that the surety -bond being in the nature of a penal forfeiture should receive a strict construction. The following authorities may be cited in support of this proposition. AIR 1951 Patna 302 AIR 1955 Supreme Court 478, AIR 1957 Allahabad 765. But at the same time it has been held that if there is some lacuna in the bond, that by itself will not relieve the surety of his responsibilities, the surrounding circumstances and other documents accompanying the bond have to be taken into consideration. Reference may be made to Bahar Hussa Vs. State 1956 Allahabad 78. The learned counsel for the appellant has further referred to a reported authority of this court AIR 1958 J & K 38 But that case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case. In that bail bond, the petitioner had stated that he would deposit Rs 1500/ - into the Treasury. The learned Judge has remarked that: - .........the mere fact, argues the learned counsel that the accused has undertaken to deposit money in treasury, without mentioning which treasury he mean that he had undertaken to forfeit Rs. 1500/ - to His Highness the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir (now the Govt.)"