ANWAR AHMAD versus STATE OF U. P.

ANWAR AHMAD versus STATE OF U. P.

Since the bond was executed before a police officer and not before a court, it was not valid or enforceable under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and its forfeiture was illegal.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Anwar Ahmad; Respondent: State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 September 1975
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Bond, Seizure of Property, Powers of Police, Validity of Bonds Executed Before Police, Custody of Property During Investigation
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Forfeiture of Bond Seizure of Property Powers of Police Validity of Bonds Executed Before Police Custody of Property During Investigation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anwar Ahmad

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a bond for production of property seized by police, executed before a police officer and not a court, can be forfeited under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
  2. 2 Whether the police are authorized under section 523 Cr.P.C. or UP Police Regulations to take such a bond.

Ratio Decidendi

Since the bond was executed before a police officer and not before a court, it was not valid or enforceable under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and its forfeiture was illegal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders of the courts below forfeiting the bond are set aside.
  • Appellant is discharged from the bond.