RAM LAL versus STATE OF U.P.

RAM LAL versus STATE OF U.P.

Section 499(1) Cr.P.C. does not require that the forfeiture of the surety bond be contingent upon the execution or forfeiture of a personal bond by the accused. The bonds executed by the surety are independent and separately enforceable, even if no personal bond was taken from the accused.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ram Lal; Respondent: State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 March 1979
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Order of Forfeiture Confirmed by Allahabad High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Bail Bonds, Surety Liability, Forfeiture of Bonds
Criminal Law Bail Suretyship Bail Bonds Surety Liability Forfeiture of Bonds

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Lal

Appellant

State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Order of Forfeiture Confirmed by Allahabad High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the execution of a personal bond by an accused is a condition precedent to the forfeiture of the bond executed by the surety
  2. 2 Whether the surety bond is independent of the personal bond executed by the accused

Ratio Decidendi

Section 499(1) Cr.P.C. does not require that the forfeiture of the surety bond be contingent upon the execution or forfeiture of a personal bond by the accused. The bonds executed by the surety are independent and separately enforceable, even if no personal bond was taken from the accused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.