1991 P Cr (PLP)

"Admitted to consider whether the liability of the petitioners under the bail bonds executed after 7-12-1988

the date till when interim bail had been granted to the absconding accused. (2) Notice. Record. Meanwhile operation of the impugned order is stayed."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that as the accused had been allowed bail till 7-12-1988, and as bail bonds Exh. A. furnished by the present petitioners was for the appearance of the said accused on the said date i.e. 7-12-1988 only, and as the accused had duly put in appearance in the Court on the said date, therefore, the petitioners cannot be penalised by the forfeiture of the bonds furnished by them for the failure of .the accused to appear on a subsequent date, which had taken place much later in point of time i.e. on 4-2-1989. Further elaborated that in the instant case, the interim bail before arrest was allowed for a specific period i.e. from 5-12-1988 to 7-12-1988 and by operation of law it expired on the said date as specifically stated. Further submitted that, in any case, the accused named above had been attending the Court even on subsequent dates and in this respect referring to the order sheet of the lower Court, pointed out that on 7-12-1988, as stated earlier, and thereafter on 14-12-1988, 2-1-1989 and 8-1-1989 no proceedings had taken place on the said dates as the Court was not functioning but, unfortunately, the accused were marked present as appears from the perusal of the order sheet.

6. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance upon Vithaldas Mooji v. Emperor A I R 1932 Bom. 290, wherein it was held that as the bail bonds had been furnished for the appearance of the accused on a particular date and not for subsequent dates, therefore, no forfeiture of bail bonds under section 514, Cr.P.C. was called for and Basudeb Maity v. Emperor A I R 1934 Cal. 762, wherein it was held that as the surety had been executed for appearance at certain place on a certain date non-appearance of the accused on subsequent dates shall not lead to the forfeiture of the bail bonds under section 514, Cr.P.C.

7. Further submitted that, in any case, as the impugned order had imposed the penalty of Rs.10,000 each, on both the accused as well as on the two sureties (the present petitioners), therefore, the said order is not sustainable in law, as it had exceeded the sum of Rs.15,000 each furnished by the sureties. Further submitted that the penalty could not be imposed on the accused under the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C., as under the provisions of said section only the bonds furnished can be forfeited. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, referred to subsection 499, Cr.P.C. which is hereby reproduced for reference:-- "Before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the police officer or Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient, shall be executed by such person, and, when he is released on bail, by one or more sufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond, and shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the police officer or Court, as the case may be. If, the case so requires, the bond shall also bind the person released on bail to appear when called upon at the High Court, Court of Session or other Court to answer the charge." Therefore, argued that the petitioners as sureties were liable for the failure of the accused to continue to attend the Court unless otherwise directed and as such the failure of the accused to put in appearance in the Court on the relevant date on 4-2-1989, rendered the accused liable for action in accordance with law, and the petitioners as sureties, liable for the forfeiture of the bail bonds furnished by them. However, as it is abundantly clear from the order dated 5-12-1988, the accused were allowed interim pre-arrest bail only upto 7-12-1988, therefore, the bail bonds furnished by the petitioners were only to ensure the appearance of the accused in the Court on the said date. The language of the said order, dated 5-12-1988 does not suffer from any ambiguity in this respect. If the learned lower Court desired the interim bail before arrest to continue indefinitely, the learned lower Court would have so ordered in unmistakable terms. In any pronouncement/order of a Court neither anything can be added nor subtracted to uphold an action otherwise not supported by the plain reading of the text of the said order and, it goes without saying, that it has to be read, interpreted and enforced in accordance with its obvious and ostensible intent as enjoined by its plain language. In the instant case, as the interim bail before arrest was allowed only upto 7-12-1988, therefore, the said interim relief thus allowed stood expired on the said date because of the failure of a competent Court to extend the same by definite order to that effect. Resultantly, any bond/surety furnished by the petitioner, for the appearance of the accused on the said date, consequently stood discharged after the accused had put in appearance on the said date and was duly marked present. In this respect, it shall be pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of section 499, Cr.P.C. relied upon on behalf of the State and reproduced above. The relevant provision is stated in the second part of the section i.e. "If the case so requires, the bond shall also bind the person released on bail to appear when called upon at the High Court, Court of Session or other Court to answer the charge." As the underlined portion highlights, the bond shall bind the person released on bail to appear when called upon only if the case so requires. Therefore, in pursuance to the above discussion, the present criminal revision petition is hereby allowed and resultantly the impugned judgment, dated 19-3-1989 set aside. H.B.T./K-338/L Revision petition allowed.