Forfeiture of bail bond

Where there is nothing on record to suggest that the surety had any other consideration except the benevolence of the accused, or the appellant stood surety for the accused out of charitable motive and not to derive any monetary benefit and there was no ulterior motive or connivance on his part, the surety should not be penalized heavily or treated harshly in case of non-appearance of the accused; while dealing with the surety, the principle of undue leniency and undue severity as well as the circumstances of the case must be kept in mind by the Court; and, sureties of accused persons involved in heinous crimes or involving capital punishment do not deserve any leniency while considering reduction of their bonds, but sureties of accused involved in minor offences with minor punishments and penalties should be treated leniently, and the entire amount of surety bond in such cases should not be forfeited.

Role of identifier/verifier of the bail bond is limited to the extent that he verifies the sureties to be local residents

Court has to determine as to whether the sureties are reliable and men of means, if so, it can proceed further to accept the bail bonds otherwise reject them.

Accused for whom petitioners stood sureties, having remained absent from court on date of hearing, sureties were summoned

Neither the accused appeared nor his sureties put their attendance, which resulted into forfeiture of bail bonds of accused and petitioners/sureties were held liable for payment of amount of bail bond (Rs. 100,000/-) each

Validity

Record showed that Trial Court without securing the attendance of the sureties, passed order for forfeiture of bail bonds of accused and held the sureties/ petitioners liable to pay the amount of bail bonds

Said order was against the scheme of law relating to forfeiture of bond and realization of amount

Trial Court was bound to first forfeit the bail bond, and serve a show-cause notice

In the present case, no show-cause notices were issued to the sureties, in the absence of which impugned order was not sustainable

Revision petition was accepted by setting aside impugned order and case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioners.

Accused for whom applicant stood surety, having remained absent from court on date of hearing, bail bond executed by the applicant was forfeited, and surety was asked to deposit surety amount of Rs. two lac

Validity

Trial Court while passing impugned order, had adopted proper procedure as contained in S.514, Cr.P.C.

Once accused jumped bail bond, entire surety amount, would become liable to be forfeited in absence of mitigating circumstances

In the present case, applicant/surety had not brought mitigating circumstances

Approach of the Trial Court appeared to be dynamic and progressive, oriented with the desire to discourage accused person to jump bail bond

Order of Trial Court, being based upon sound reasons, did not require interference, in circumstances

Revision application was dismissed.

While dealing with cases of sureties who might be in default, a judicial mind was supposed to maintain a balance between undue leniency on one hand, which might lead to abuse of procedure and interference with course of justice, and undue severity on the other, which might lead to unwillingness on part of neighbours and friends to come forward (to stand as sureties)

While maintaining such a balance, courts were required to hold some sort of balance while determining as to what extent a bond was to be forfeited.

Nature of offence, efforts made by surety to produce the accused and financial position of surety might be taken into consideration while passing orders

Balance should be kept between undue severity and undue leniency

Undue severity might lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbours and friends to come forward and give surety for persons.