Kundan Singh vs State

Chopra, J.—Kundan Singh applicant executed a bond u/s 499, Criminal P.C., in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- by which he covenanted to produce Bir Singh, an accused in a case u/s 325, I.P.C., when required by the Court. Personal bond executed by Bir Singh on the back of the security deed was not thumb marked or signed by him. Bir Singh did not appear on 11-10-1950, the date fixed in the case. The Magistrate, 1st Class, Barnala directed the security bond to be forfeited and ordered the entire amount to be realised from the surety. On an appeal against, the said order the learned Additional District Magistrate, Barnala reduced the amount to Rs. 800/- and rejected other objections taken by the surety. Kundan Singh has presented this petition to revise the order of the Additional District Magistrate.

The only point raised by the petitioner''s counsel is that as the accused Bir Singh himself did not execute a bond for his appearance but Kundan Singh alone executed a bond as a surety, the surety does not become amenable to the penalties contemplated by law in the event of his failure to produce the accused. AIR 1928 318 (Lahore); Brahma Nand Misra Vs. Emperor, and Imarat Mallik and Others Vs. Emperor, , have been cited as authorities in support of the argument. I do not see any substance in the contention because I am of the view that the two bonds contained different undertakings and were not co-related. The validity of the one does not depend on the validity of the other.

It is no doubt correct that when an accused person is released on bail, he must execute a bond himself for his appearance together with a bond on behalf of his surety to produce him. Section 499 does contemplate two bonds, one by the accused and another by the surety or sureties; but that does not mean that if there was no bond executed by the accused the surety was discharged from his liability and the bond executed by him was invalidated on that account. To release the accused on bail merely on an undertaking given by the surety, without the accused having been required to execute a personal bond, may be irregular, but I do not think that fact alone would affect the liability of the surety who had undertaken to produce the accused before the Court in the case for which the bond was meant. I am in respectful agreement with a similar view taken by Malik, J., in Nisar Ahmad Vs. Emperor, The cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicant were referred to and not looked at with approval in that case. The view expressed by Zaffar Ali, J., in AIR 1928 Lah 318 was dissented from by Skamp, J., in a subsequent case of the same Court reported as AIR 1940 339 (Lahore)

Reference has also been made to two decisions of the erstwhile Patiala High Court reported as 4 Patiala LR 95 and 6 Patiala LR 353. In both of these cases the reasoning adopted in AIR 1928 318 (Lahore) appears to have been followed and they were decided before the view of Zaffar Ali, J., was dissented from in '' 1940 Lah 339.'' As already observed, I do not think the validity of the surety bond depends upon the accused executing a personal bond for his appearance. I do not see any thing wrong in the decision arrived at by the learned Additional District Magistrate that the surety deed was not invalidated because of the absence of a personal bond from the accused himself.

The next point urged by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the amount ordered to be realised from the surety deserves further reduction. The case against the accused was not a serious one and it appears that in spite of all his efforts the applicant was not able to find the whereabouts of the accused. Taking into consideration all the facts of the case I would reduce the amount to Rs. 500/-. With this modification the petition is dismissed.