RAM LAL versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 448 · Decided: 05-03-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

448 
A 
RAM LAL 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
March 5, 1979 
• 
B 
(S. l\1URTAZA FAZAL ALI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
S. 499(1) Cr.P.C.-No personal bond taken front accused-Nor was the 
signature of the accupsed taken on the reserve of surety bond-Accused jumptd 
bail-Sureties if liable-Bond executed by surety if independent of the bond ex~­
cuted by accused. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: Section 499(1) of the Cr. P.C., \Vhich contemplated the 
e.xecution 
of a bond by the accused and by the sureties, did not imply that a single bond 
was to be executed by both the accused and the sureties, signed by the accused 
and counter-signed by the sureties. An undertaking of the surety in Form 42, 
Schedule V to secure the attendance of the accused \Vas quite independent of the 
undertaking given by the accused to appear before the court whenever called 
upon, even if both the undertakings of the surety and the accused happened ·~o 
be executed in the same document for the sake of convenience. Each under-
taking being distinct can be separately enforced. [ 450 C, 451 B·DJ 
The fact that an accused 'vould not be released on bail without his execut-
ing a personal bond does not mean that if a person is released by n1h .. takc 
without his executing a personal bond, the sureties are absolved from securing 
the attendance of the accused and his appearance before the court. The sure-
ties' responsibility arises from the execution of the surety bond and is not 
contingent upon execution of a personal bond by the accused. Nor is the liabi-
lity to forfeiture of the bond executed by the surety 
contingent upon 
the 
execution and the Iio1bility to forfeiture of the personal bond executed by 
the 
accused. The forfeiture of the personal bond of the accused is not a condition 
precedet:it to the forfeiture of the bonds executed by the sureties. 
[451 E-F] 
Abdul Aziz & Anr. v. Emperor, AIR 1946 All. 116; Mewa Ram & Anr. v. 
State, AIR 1953 All. 481; approved. 
Bakaru Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 430; distinguished. 
• 
Brahma Nand Misra v. Emperor, AIR 1939 All. 682; 
Sailesh Clumdra 
'f 
Chakraborty v. The State, AIR 1963 Cal. 309; over-ruled. 
• 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 154 
-G 
of 1972. 
• 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12-11-1971 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Criminal Revision No. 865 of 1970. 
Shiv Pujan Singh for the Appellant. 
D .P. Uniyal and M. V. Goswami for the Respondent. 
lff 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CmNNAPPA REDDY J.-Jorma who was convicted by the learned 
-< 
Sessions Judge, Dehradun under Section ~02 Indian Penal Code and 
.. 
• 
• 
' 
' -\ • 
• 
' 
• 
RAM LAL v. u. P. STATE (Chinnappa Reddy, !.) 
449 
~entenced to suffer• imprisonment for life, was directed by the High 
Court of Allahabad to be released on bail on furnishing bail to the 
'Satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Dehradun. The District Magis-
trate (Judicial) Dehradun ordered Jorma to execute a personal bond 
in a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and to furnish two sureties in a sum of Rs . 
10,000/- each. 
Ram Lal the present appellant was one of the persons 
who executed a surety bond. Another, Abdul Jabbar, also executed 
a surety bond. By some oversight no personal bond was taken from 
Jorma nor was his signature taken on the reverse of the bonds executed 
by the two sureties as appeared to have been usually done. 
Jorma 
jumped bail and the sureties were unable to produce him when required 
to do so. 
The Distrjct Magistrate, Dehradun, therefore, forfeited the 
surety bonds and issued' a warrant of attachment against the sureties 
under Section 514 of the Olde of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 
The 
"llppellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Allahabad against 
the order of forfeiture. Before the High Court it was submitted that 
the surety bond executed by the appellant could not be forfeited when 
no personal bond had been taken from the accused who had been 
released on bail. 
The High Court over-ruled the submission of the 
appellant and confirmed the order af forfeiture. 
The appellant has 
' 
'filed this appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court under Arti-
de 134(1) (c) of the Constitution. 
Shri Shiv Pujan Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted 
that the question of forfeiting the surety bond for the failure of the 
accused to appear would arise only if the accused himself had executed 
a personal boud for his appearance. He submitted that someone must 
be prima

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.