Kishan Lal vs State of U.P.

V.N. Varma, J.—This revision has arisen out of proceedings u/s 514 Code of Criminal Procedure.

It appears that one Prem Singh was wanted by the police in a case u/s 379 IPC. The case related to P.S. Gur Sahaiganj, district Farrukhabad. The Investigating Officer did not find sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of Prem Singh to a Magistrate and, therefore/released him on his executing a bond with a surety to appear if and when so required before a Magistrate. The applicant was said to have stood surety for Prem Singh. Prem Singh absconded and did not appear in Court. The applicant was directed to produce him, but he could not do so. His surety bond was, therefore, forfeited and he was asked to pay a penalty of Rs. 500/-. The applicant challenged the order forfeiting his bond in appeal, but in vain.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant as also the State Counsel at sufficient length and have also perused the record of the case. The learned Counsel for the applicant took me through the surety bond which the applicant was said to have executed in this case. That bond was executed to secure the release of Prem Singh u/s 169 Code of Criminal Procedure. Such a bond is executed on Form No. XXV of Schedule v. of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old). According to this form the surety binds himself to produce the accused of the case in a specified court on a specified date or other dates to be specified later on. The surety bond executed by the applicant is on the file of the case. To start with I find that the applicant had never undertaken upon himself to produce accused Prem Singh in Court. What is written in the bond is that accused Prem Singh will produce the applicant in Court. This was undoubtedly absurd and shows extreme carelessness on the part of the police which had got the surety-bond filled in in this case. Even if one took it that the filling in of the bond was the result of a clerical mistake, that will not go to improve matters because in other respects also the bond is vague and lacking in particulars. Neither the name of the Court in which the accused was to be produced, nor the date on which he was to be produced, have been mentioned in the bond. All that is mentioned is that the accused is to be produced in an ''Indual Talab Adalat,'' but the date on which he was to be produced in that Adalat is not there. Obviously, the description "Indual Talab Adalat" is highly vague. According to the form, the name of the Court in which the accused was to be produced, must have been notified with clarity and so also the first date of this production. This having not been done in this case, the bond executed by the applicant can neither be enforced, nor forfeited. Provisions of penalty and forfeiture are penal in character and, therefore, they have to be strictly followed. The bond executed by the applicant in this case is so vague and slovenly worded that on the face of it, it is not possible to enforce it at all. I, however, find that the courts below still enforced it and imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/- on the applicant. This was not at all proper and the orders passed by them are totally unsustainable. This revision must, therefore, succeed.

In the result, I allow this revision and set aside the orders passed by the courts below.