- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sailesh Chandra Chakraborty v. The State Opposite Party.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, Sailesh Chandra Chakravarty, executed a bail bond as surety for accused persons Salimuddin, Sultan, and three others, who were released on bail by the Officer-in-Charge of Dinhata Police Station under Section 496 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr PC). The bond required the surety to produce the accused before the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O) at Dinhata and to pay Rs. 200 for each accused in case of default. Two accused, Sultan and Salimuddin, absconded. The S.D.O directed the petitioner to produce them, but he failed to do so. Consequently, the S.D.O called upon the petitioner to show cause why the bail bond should not be forfeited. After hearing, the S.D.O forfeited the bail bond and ordered the petitioner to deposit Rs. 400. On appeal, the Assistant District Magistrate reduced the forfeiture to Rs. 300 considering the petitioner’s refugee status. The petitioner then filed this revisional application challenging the forfeiture.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a bail bond executed as surety for the production of accused persons, taken by a police officer under Section 496 of the Cr PC, can be forfeited under Section 514 of the Cr PC.
- Whether a bail bond executed only by the surety, and not by the accused, complies with the requirements of Section 499 of the Cr PC, and if such a bond is subject to forfeiture under Section 514 of the Cr PC.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The bail bond could not be forfeited under Section 514 of the Cr PC because it was not taken by the Court but by a police officer.
- The bond was not in accordance with law as it was executed only by the surety and not by the accused, contrary to Section 499 of the Cr PC, and thus could not be forfeited.
Respondent’s Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rameshwar Bhartia v. State Of Assam, AIR 1952 SC 405 | Forfeiture under Section 514 Cr PC requires the bond to be taken by the Court when the bond is for production of property. | The Court distinguished this precedent, holding that for bonds for appearance of accused taken by police under Section 496 Cr PC, forfeiture under Section 514 is permissible even if not taken by the Court. |
| Narendra Nath Majumdar v. The State, 59 Cal WN 475 | A bail bond not complying with Section 499 Cr PC is not a valid bond under the Code, and thus cannot be forfeited under Section 514 Cr PC. | The Court relied on this precedent to hold that since the bond was executed only by the surety and not by the accused, it was not a valid bail bond and could not be forfeited under Section 514 Cr PC. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the bail bond and the statutory provisions governing forfeiture under the Cr PC. It observed that Section 514 of the Cr PC is divided into two parts: the first pertains to bonds taken by the Court, and the second to bonds for appearance of accused before the Court. The Court clarified that for bonds concerning appearance of accused taken by police under Section 496, forfeiture under Section 514 is permissible even if the bond was not taken by the Court itself.
However, the Court found that Section 499 of the Cr PC requires the bail bond to be executed by both the accused and the surety, except where the accused is a minor (Section 514B). In this case, the bond was executed only by the surety, Sailesh Chandra Chakravarty, and there was no indication that the accused were minors. Therefore, the bond did not comply with the Code’s requirements and could not be treated as a valid bail bond under the Cr PC.
Relying on the precedent in Narendra Nath Majumdar v. The State, the Court held that a bond not meeting Section 499 conditions is not subject to forfeiture under Section 514, although the surety may still be liable for damages under contract law. Consequently, the forfeiture order was set aside.
Holding and Implications
The revisional application is allowed and the order forfeiting the bail bond is set aside.
The Court’s decision directly affects the petitioner by relieving him from the forfeiture liability under Section 514 of the Cr PC due to the invalidity of the bond. No broader precedent was established beyond clarifying the application of Sections 499 and 514 of the Cr PC to bail bonds executed solely by sureties without the accused's signature.
S.K Sen, J.:— This revisional application is directed against the forfeiture of the bond executed by the petitioner Sailesh Chandra Chakravarty as the surety for producing certain accused in Court. The accused Salimuddin, Sultan and three others were arrested by the police, and on 16-7-59 under the provisions of Section 496 of the Cr PC they were released on bail by the officer-in-Charge of Dinhata Police Station, who accepted a bail bond executed by the petitioner Sailesh Chandra Chakravarty as surety. Sailesh Chandra Chakraborty undertook to produce each of the accused in the Court of the S.D.O at Dinhata and in default undertook to pay Rs. 200/- in respect of each accused. Two of the accused, namely, Sultan and Salimuddin absconded, and the surety Sailesh Chandra Chakravarty was directed to produce them before the S.D.O, Dinhata, but failed to do so. Thereupon the S.D.O Dinhata, called upon the petitioner to show cause why the bail bond should not be forfeited. After hearing the petitioner, the S.D.O by an order dated 4-4-60 forfeited the bail bond and directed the petitioner to deposit in Court the full amount of Rs. 400/- in respect of the two accused. There was an appeal to the District Magistrate under the provisions of Section 515 of the Cr PC, but the learned A.D.M, Cooch Behar, who heard the appeal only reduced to Rs. 300/- the amount forfeited, on the ground that the petitioner was a refugee from East Bengal. Accordingly, the petitioner has moved this revisional application. Mr. Alak Gupta has first urged that the bail bond could not be forfeited under Section 514 of the Cr PC, because it was not taken by the Court, but was taken by the police, namely, the Officer-in-Charge of Dinhata Police Station, and in support of his contention he has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Bhartia v. State Of Assam, AIR 1952 SC 405. In that case, however, the only thing that was decided was that when the bond was for the production of property, action under Section 514 of the Cr PC could be taken only when the bond was taken by the Court. In that case the Supreme Court did not purport to lay down that if bail bond for the appearance of the accused was taken by a police officer under Section 496 of the Cr PC, the bond could not be forfeited under Section 514 of the Cr PC. A. reference to the terms of Section 514 of the Cr PC shows that the section is divided in two parts: the first part relates to any bond taken by Court and the second part relates to a bond for the appearance of an accused before the Court When the bond is for appearance before the Court, it is not provided by Section 514 of the Cr PC that the bond must be taken by the Court, but in every other case it is necessary that the bond must be taken by the Court. Accordingly, in respect of a bond for the production of seized property the Supreme Court naturally held that unless it was a bond taken by the Court in self it could not be forfeited under Section 514 of the Cr PC. In respect of the appearance of the accused before the Court, it is sufficient that the bond should be for the appearance of the accused before the Court, even though the bond is taken by the police; and it is not necessary that it should be taken by the Court Itself.
2. Next, Mr. Gupta has urged that the bond was not in accordance with law, and therefore, could not be forfeited under Section 514 of the Cr PC. Section 499 of the Cr PC, which relates to the bond by an accused and by sureties, provides that before any person is released on bail, a bond for such sum of money as the police officer or the Court thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person and by one or more sufficient sureties. It appears, therefore, that Section 499 of the Cr PC requires that a bail bond taken under the Code should be signed by the accused as well as by the surety.
3. There is a provision in Section 514B that when the person required by any Court to execute a bend is minor, the bond may be executed by the surety only; but in respect of a person who is not a minor, Section 499 of the Cr PC requires that the bail bond must be executed both by the accused and the surety. In the present case, the record shows that the ball bond was executed by the surety Sailesh Chandra Chakravarty only and not by the accused, and there is nothing to show that the two accused Sultan and Salimuddin were minors.
4. In the circumstances we are constrained to hold that the bail bond was not a bond within the terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, Section 514 of the Cr PC would not apply to the bond. In support of our view we may refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Narendra Nath Majumdar v. The State, 59 Cal WN 475, where it was held that where a bail bond did not comply with the requirsments of Section 499 of the Cr PC the bond could not be said to be a bond under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore, the Court could have no jurisdiction to forfeit the bond under Section 514 of the Cr PC. No doubt the surety may be proceeded against for damages for breach of contract; but forfeiture of the bond under Section 514 of the Cr PC is not legally passible in the circumstances.
5. Accordingly, this Rule is made absolute and the order of forfeiture of the bond and for deposit of the money as passed by the Courts below is set aside.
K.C Sen, J.:— I agree.
GF/O/V.B.B
6. Rule made absolute.
Alert