- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bekaru Singh v. State Of Uttar Pradesh .
Factual and Procedural Background
Ram Narain, accused of embezzling funds of the Pikaura Cooperative Society, was directed by the Allahabad High Court on 9 June 1958 to furnish a personal bond for ₹1,00,000 and three surety bonds (₹40,000 + ₹40,000 + ₹20,000) within three weeks. He executed his personal bond on 26 June 1958 and produced three sureties; however, one surety, Safir Hussain, later refused to verify his bond.
On 7 July 1958 Safir Hussain applied to cancel his surety. Two days later, Ram Narain proposed a substitute surety, Bekaru Singh, who executed a bond for ₹40,000. The Magistrate ordered verification and formally accepted this bond on 20 August 1958.
The police charge-sheet arrived on 20 August 1958, and summonses issued for Ram Narain were repeatedly unserved; his non-appearance on 1 September, 9 September and 23 September led the court on 24 September to initiate proceedings under Sections 87–88 CrPC and to notify all sureties. On 29 October 1958 the Magistrate forfeited the personal and surety bonds and ordered recovery proceedings. Bekaru’s objection was dismissed on 20 April 1959, and successive appeals before the Sessions Judge and the Allahabad High Court also failed. He then filed the present appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a Magistrate may accept a fresh surety bond in substitution of an earlier surety without first following the procedure under Section 502(2)–(3) CrPC (issue of warrant, production of the accused, and formal discharge of the outgoing surety).
- Whether a surety bond is invalid—and therefore not liable to forfeiture—if it is executed without being printed on the same document as the accused’s personal bond.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Bekaru Singh)
- The Magistrate was bound by Section 502 CrPC to issue a warrant for Ram Narain’s arrest and to discharge Safir Hussain’s bond before accepting any substitute surety; failure to do so rendered Bekaru’s bond void.
- Because Bekaru’s surety bond was not endorsed on the reverse side of Ram Narain’s personal bond, and no new personal bond was simultaneously executed, the surety bond was invalid and could not be forfeited.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Brahma Nand v. Emperor, AIR 1939 All 682 | Held that forfeiture is impermissible where no personal bond by the accused exists. | Distinguished: Unlike Brahma Nand, Ram Narain had executed a personal bond on 26-6-1958; therefore the surety bond was valid and capable of forfeiture. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Justice Raghubar Dayal held that Section 502 CrPC is intended to ensure continuity of security for an accused on bail, not to impose pre-conditions for accepting a new surety. Because Ram Narain was present in court on 7 July 1958 and offered a replacement surety two days later, the Magistrate’s acceptance of Bekaru’s bond was lawful; issuing a warrant under Section 502(2) would have served no purpose.
The Court noted that under Section 499 CrPC, a surety bond becomes operative upon execution, subject to later enquiries about sufficiency. The verification ordered from the tehsil therefore did not postpone the bond’s effectiveness; at the latest, liability clearly attached after its formal acceptance on 20 August 1958.
Relying on Sections 500 and 501 CrPC, the Court reasoned that once a bond is executed, the accused remains on bail unless and until the court finds the surety insufficient. There was no evidence that the Magistrate knew Ram Narain had absconded when the bond was accepted.
Addressing the second issue, the Court rejected the argument based on Brahma Nand, emphasising that Ram Narain’s personal bond was already on record. The Criminal Procedure Code does not require that all sureties sign the same physical document as the accused, nor that multiple personal bonds be executed corresponding to each surety.
Consequently, the Court concluded that Bekaru’s bond was valid and properly forfeited upon Ram Narain’s failure to appear.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed. The forfeiture order against Bekaru Singh for ₹40,000 stands.
Implications: The judgment clarifies that (1) a Magistrate may accept substitute sureties without first invoking the warrant procedure under Section 502 CrPC, and (2) the validity of a surety bond does not depend on it being written on the same sheet as the accused’s personal bond. The decision directly affects the parties but does not announce a new broader legal doctrine.
Raghubar Dayal, J.— One Ram Narain was ordered by the High Court of Allahabad, on 9-6-1958, to furnish a personal bond for a lakh of 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 committed criminal breach of trust with respect to the funds of the Pikaura Cooperative Society. He was to furnish the personal bond and the sureties within three weeks from the date of the order. It was further ordered:
“The applicant should furnish the personal bond and sureties as directed above within three 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 be liable to be re-arrested and detained till the necessary bonds and sureties are furnished.”
2. It may be mentioned that Ram Narain had previously furnished a personal bond and sureties in connection with the embezzlement alleged to have been committed by him and that the necessity for a fresh order for furnishing personsal bond and sureties arose on account of the police submitting more than one charge-sheet with respect to the amount embezzled and it was felt that the original security furnished might not be effective.
3. On 26-6-1958, Ram Narain executed a personal bond for Rs 1,00,000 and offered the required sureties. Kashi stood surety for Rs 40,000, Safir Hussain for Rs 40,000 and Smt Sona for Rs 20,000 respectively. The surety bond by Safir Hussain was not duly verified as he was in hospital at that time, but when it was put up to Safir Hussain for verification on 12-7-1958 he refused to verify it.
4. Prior to this, on July 7, 1968, Safir Hussain filed an application before the Magistrate praying that his surety bonds in connection with the embezzlement of Rs 40,000 and Rs 80,000 be cancelled. Ram Narain was present in court that day. No particular order was passed on this application of Safir Hussain.
5. On 9-7-1958, an application on behalf of Ram Narain was filed stating that Bekaru's surety be accepted in place of Safir Hussain's surety. Bekaru filed the surety bond offering himself to stand surety for Rs 40,000 for Ram Narain's appearance in court. He was identified by Shri Ahmad Hussain, Vakil, who certified that Bekaru Singh possessed sufficient property to stand surety for Rs 40,000. The Magistrate ordered for the verification from the tehsil and on receipt of the report from the tehsil, accepted the bond on 20-8-1958. The tehsil report, however, indicated that the house mentioned in the surety bond and alleged to be worth Rs 60,000 was estimated to be worth Rs 16,075.
6. The police charge-sheet in the case appears to have reached the court on August 20, 1958, when summons for the appearance of Ram Narain was ordered to be issued for 1-9-1958. The summons was not served. When Ram Narain did not appear on 1-9-1958, September 9, and September 23, the court, on September 24, ordered action under Sections 87 and 88 CrPC against him and the issue of notices to the sureties to produce him in court. When he did not appear in court on October 29, the court forfeited the personal bond executed by Ram Narain and the bail bonds executed by the sureties and ordered issue of notices to the sureties to pay the penalty or show cause as to why the amount be not recovered from them. Bekaru objected to the forfeiture of his surety bond. On 20-4-1959, the objection was disallowed and the learned Judicial Officer ordered that the amount of Rs 40,000 be recovered from his movable property through attachment and sale. Bekaru appealed but his appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. His revision application to the High Court was also dismissed. He has preferred this appeal by special leave.
7. The main contention for the appellant is that the learned Magistrate should not have accepted Bekaru Singh's surety bond without first taking action contemplated by sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 502 CrPC. Section 502 reads:
“502. (1) All or any sureties for the attendance and appearance of a person released on bail may at any time apply to a Magistrate to discharge the bond, either wholly or so far as relates to the applicants.
(2) On such application being made, the Magistrate shall issue his warrant of arrest directing that the person so released be brought before him.
(3) On the appearance of such person pursuant to the warrant, or on his voluntary surrender, the Magistrate shall direct the bond to be discharged either wholly or so far as relates to the applicant, and shall call upon such person to find other sufficient sureties, and, if he fails to do so, may commit him to custody.”
8. It is urged that the Magistrate had to issue a warrant for the arrest of Ram Narain when Safir Hussain had presented his application for the discharge of his surety bond and that when Ram Narain would have appeared before the court in execution of that warrant, the Magistrate had to first discharge Safir Hussain's surety bond and only then could have called upon Ram Narain to furnish other surety. The Magistrate took no such step and therefore could not have legally accepted the surety bond offered by Bekaru on July 9, 1958. We do not agree with this contention. These provisions of Section 502 are meant for the continuity of the surety bond on the basis of which an accused has been released on bail till such time that the accused is before the court and for taking further action in case the accused desires to offer another security in place of the one who is to be discharged. They are not conditions precedent for the acceptance of a fresh surety in place of the earlier one. In the circumstances of the present case, there was no occasion to issue a warrant for the arrest of Ram Narain on Safir Hussain's applying for the discharge of his surety bond. We do not know in what circumstances no particular order was passed on 7-7-1958 on the application of Safir Hussain. Ram Narain who was present in court that day, may have intimated to the court that he would offer a fresh surety on July 9. Any way a fresh surety was offered on that day viz. July 9. Bekaru stood surety. An application on behalf of Ram Narain was presented praying for the acceptance of Bekaru's surety bond in place of Safir Hussain's. In accepting Bekaru's surety bond the court committed no wrong. It was interested in getting a fresh surety for letting Ram Narain continue on bail. Bekaru offered the surety bond. His competence to stand surety for Rs 40,000 was certified by a vakil. Safir Husaain's bond therefore stood cancelled and Bekaru's took its place. We do not therefore consider that there was any incompetency in the Magistrate's accepting Bekaru's surety bond in place of Safir Hussain's.
9. It is true that Bekaru's surety bond was formally accepted on 20-8-1958, but that does not matter. Sub-section (1) of Section 499 CrPC provides that before any person is released on bail a bond must be executed by such person and bonds be also executed by sureties for the attendance of that person in court. Sub-section (3) of Section 499 is:
“(3) For the purpose of determining whether the sureties are sufficient, the court may, if it so thinks fit, accept affidavits in proof of the facts contained therein relating to the sufficiency of the sureties or may such further enquiry as it deems necessary.”
When Bekaru furnished the surety bond he also filed an affidavit stating therein that the house mentioned in the surety bond was worth over Rs 40,000. Shri Ahmad Husain, Vakil, certified that Bekaru possessed sufficient property to stand surety for Rs 40,000. In the circumstances, the Magistrate could accept Bekaru's surety bond. Of course the Magistrate could make further enquiry as well and it was the purpose of further enquiry that he ordered verification from the tehsil. Bekaru's bond, in our opinion, was accepted on July 9, subject to further orders on the receipt of the tehsil report.
10. Further, Ram Narain's continuing on bail is justified by the provisions of Section 500 CrPC, once Bekaru's surety bond had been filed. Its sub-section (1) provides that as soon as the bond has been executed, the person for whose appearance it has been executed shall be released. This contemplates that the accused is to be released on the execution of the bonds which should be accepted on their face value in the first instance. Section 501 CrPC provides for the issue of a warrant of arrest of the person so released on bail if it is subsequently found that through mistake, fraud or otherwise, insufficient sureties had been accepted, or if they afterwards became insufficient. We are therefore of opinion that formal acceptance of Bekaru's surety bond on 20-8-1958 by the Magistrate does not in any way affect Bekaru's liability on that bond from 9-7-1958. Any way, he was liable on that bond for the non-appearance of Ram Narain on a date subsequent to 20-8-1958.
11. It may be mentioned that it was urged up to the appeal stage that the surety bond was accepted on the 20th of August, 1958 after the Magistrate had known of the absconding of Ram Narain. The courts found against this allegation as there was no evidence in support of it.
12. Another point urged is that the surety bond executed by Bekaru Singh did not have on the other side the personal bond executed by Ram Narain and that in the absence of a personal bond by Ram Narain, the surety bond executed by Bekaru could not be legally accepted. Reliance is placed on the case reported as Brahma Nand v. Emperor AIR 1939 All 682 and a few other cases expressing the same view. These cases are distinguishable on facts. In Brahma Nand case AIR 1939 All 682the accused himself had not executed any bond and therefore it was held that the surety bonds could not be forfeited. In the present case Ram Narain executed bond on 26-6-1958. Kashi, one of the sureties, executed the surety bond printed at the back of the bond executed by Ram Narain. Ram Narain had already bound himself to pay Rs 1,00,000 in case he failed to appear in court when required. Other sureties bound themselves to pay the various amounts in case Ram Narain did not appear. Their surety bonds are good by themselves. Bekaru's surety bond is therefore as effective and legal as Kashi's bond which is just on the back of Ram Narain's bond. It is not required by any provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure that all the sureties should execute the bond printed at the back of the form on which the accused executes the personal bond or that the accused must execute as many bonds in identical terms as there are surety bonds by individual sureties. The mere fact that Form 42, 1982 Schedule V of the Criminal Procedure Code, prints the contents of the two bonds, one to be executed by the accused and the other by the surety, together, does not mean that both these bonds should be on the same sheet of paper.
13. We are, therefore, of opinion that Bekaru's bond can be forfeited if Ram Narain does not comply with the terms of his bond executed on 26-6-1958 and that Ram Narain had not to execute a bond afresh when Bekaru furnished fresh surety in place of Safir Hussain's surety bond. We therefore hold that the appellant's bond has been rightly forfeited on the non-appearance of Ram Narain in court. We therefore dismiss the appeal.
Alert