LexBEKARU SINGH versus STATE OF U. P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
55
but that is the interpretation of the language of the
various sections which are-relevant in the prf'sent
case.
Wa therefore aJlow the appeal, set aside the
order of the High Court and convict the respondent
of the offences charged, but in view of the fact that
the appel1ant succeeds on a question of interpreta-
tion we do not think it necessary to increase the
sentence of fine. imposed by the
0 1earned Sessiom1'
.Judge.
The appeal is a.llowed to that extent.
Appeal f!llowe.d.
BEKARU SINGH
v.
STATE OF U. P.
(J. L. KAPUR, and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
Criminal Procedure-Surety bond-Substitutin{f one surety
for another-Procedure-If accused must execute per.~onal bond
with every suretv bond-Forfeiture of bond-Gode of Oriminal
Procedure, 1898 (Act. V of 18!J8), .~s. 499, 500, fi02, Sclied111e V.
Form. No. XLII.
One R was grantee! bail on his furnishing a personal
bond and three sureties which he did.
O_n. July 7, one of
the sureties S appl~ed for the discharge of his bond. On July
9, R made an application that the appdlants surety bond be
a<:cepted in place of S, and the same day the 'appellant
filed his surety bond. The appellant also· filed an affidavit
that he had property enough to satisfy the bond and a vakil
also certified to that effect. The bond was sent for verification
to the Tehsil and after verification was formally accepted on
August
20.
Subsequently R ab~condecl and the appellant's
bond was forfeited. The appellant contended that the
forfeiture was illegal and t?at his bond was not properly
accepted as no warraut was issued fm: the arrest of R when
S applied for the discharge of his bond, as the bond of S
was not formally discharged and as R had not execulccl a
personal hond on the reverse of the form on which the
appellant had executed his bond.
J9oZ
Ohairman of tht
Municipal.
Commissione1a of
Howrah
v.
Bhalimtlr Wood
Prod11cts
Kop11r .T
1962
MarchZ6.
1162
Bekaru Singh
v.
.<tat1 of U. P.
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962]
Held, that the surety bond of the appellant had been
properly accepted and the forfeiture was legally made. The
provisions of s. 502 of the Code of Crirninal Procedure were
meant for the continuity of the. •nrety bond and for enabling
the accu~rd to offer another surety bonds; they were not con-
rlitions precedent for the acceptance of a fresh surety in place
of an earlier one. There was no occasion to issue a warrant
for the arrest of R as he was present, in Court on July 7,
when S applied for the discharge of his bond and may have
intimated to the Court that he would offer fresh surety on
July 9. The Court was interested in getting a fresh surety
for letting R continue on bail and it did no wrong in accepting
the appellant's surety bond which was offered. The bond of
S stood cancelled and appellant'• bond took its place. The
bond of the appellant was really accepted on July 9 when
the appellant filed the affidavit as required bys. 499 ( 3) of
the Code and the Vakil also certified as to his solvancy. It
was immatrrial that the bond was formally accepted on
August 20.
Further, it was not necessary that each surety
should execute the surety bond on the reverse of the personal
bond of the accused.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 171of1959.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated August 3, 1959, of the Allahabad
High Comt. in Criminal Revision No. 1080 of 1959.
0. P. /;,ma and A.G. Rat,anaparkhi, for the
appellant.
G. 0. Mathnr and 0. P. Lal, for th(' H'~J•CIJ·
dent.
1962. March 26.
The Judgment of the Court.
was delivered by
Roghnb •• , Dayal J.
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-One Ram Narain was
ordered by the High Court of Allahabad, on June
9, 1958, to furnish a personal bond for a lakh or
rupees and three sureties, two in the sum of
Rs. 40,000/- each and one in the sum of Rs. 20,000/·
in respect of the case against him for having com'
mittC'd criminal breach of trust with rPspect, to the
funds of tht1 Pikaura Co.opnative Society. He
' -
l s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
57
was to furnish the persona.I bond and the sureties
within three weeks from the dat<~ of the order. It
. was further ordered:
"The 11pplicant should fornif~h the per-
sonal bond and sureties as directed above
within th~·ee weeks from today and during
that period he will not be arrested. If he
does not furnish the bonds and sureties within
this period he will beExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.