PARBHU DAYAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon a report made by a post office Inspector the Police at Agra arrested one Ram Prasad for sending bogus V.P. parcels. On the 5 September a remand was obtained and it appears that on the 15 September Ram Prasad was released upon a bail bond which is as follows: I, Parbhu Dayal, son of Puran Chand caste Hindu, Excise Sub-Inspector, Bareilly City, hereby declare myself surety for Ram Prasad that he shall attend at the Court of the City Magistrate of Agra on every day of the preliminary inquiry into the offence charged against him, and, should the case be sent for trial by the Court of Sessions, that he shall be, and appear, before the said Court to answer the charge against him, and in case of his making default therein, I bind myself to forfeit to His Majesty the King-Emperor of India, the sum of Rs. 1,000.

(2.) On the 3 October 1925, the accused appeared before the City Magistrate who, considering the amount of security as insufficient and unsatisfactory, ordered further security to be given. The Magistrate recorded the following order: The surety appeared to-day. He should give a further security of Rs. 500 and upon a further security bond having been excuted for a sum of Rs. 500 the Court ordered the release of Ram Prasad from custody.

(3.) No case seems to have been pending before the City Magistrate of Agra at that time and nothing apparently seems to have been done at Agra. But a case under Section 420, I.P.C. was pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Purnea. It also appears that there were other cases pending under Section 420 in Bihar against the same accused. About the middle of December 1925 the District Magistrate of Agra ordered Parbhu Dayal the petitioner to produce his son in the Court of the. Sub-Divisional Officer of Purnea. A perusal of the bail bond will show that the order of the District Magistrate of Agra was wholly illegal in that Parbhu Dayal had never undertaken to produce his son at Purnea. The result of this order was that Ram Prasad disappeared while on his way to Purnea and he has not yet been arrested. Under Section 499, Clause (2), Criminal P.C. if the Magistrate who granted bail wanted the production of the accused in the Court at Purnea, he could have entered that condition in the bail bond. Nothing seems to have been done with regard to the failure of Parbhu Dayal to produce Ram Prasad until we find that a letter was sent by the District Magistrate of Agra to the Deputy Commissioner of Delhi, dated 6 August 1926, by which Parbhu Dayal was instructed to present his son Ram Prasad in the Court of City Magistrate of Agra in connexion with a case under Section 420 at Purnea. Be it noted that on that date the Magistrate at Agra knew perfectly well that it was physical impossibility for Parbhu Dayal to produce his son because the Magistrate knew quite well 9 months before that, that the son had absconded when trying to comply with the order of the District Magistrate which, to my mind, was wholly illegal. Proceedings were taken under Section 514, Criminal P.C. by Mr. Griffin, the City Magistrate of Agra. The learned Magistrate has accepted the statement on oath of Parbhu Dayal. He says in his order; I see no reason to believe that Parbhu Dayal connived at Rani Prasad's escape, but the escape was certainly due to his carelessness in leaving him alone on the way to Purnea. He is, therefore, to blame on this ground. Very generous provision is made for bail in the Criminal Procedure Code. It is essential that this generosity should not be abused. A surety must be a person who will take infinite care not to let his man get away. If he is unable to look after his man then he must not stand surety for him, even though he be his son.