Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 514

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 161, 409, 420, 467, 468, 34

Law: Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)

Section: 5(2)

 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S.514---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 161, 409, 420, 467, 468 & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Forfeiture of surety amount---Scope---Accused was granted bail in a criminal case against a surety of Rs. 100,000/= furnished by applicant---Bail was cancelled due to the absence of accused---Notice under S.514, Cr.P.C, was issued---Despite the applicant s reply, the Trial Court forfeited of the entire surety amount---Validity---Factual matrix of the case revealed that the default was neither willful nor contumacious---Record indicated that the accused did present himself in Court on the relevant date and remained present until approximately 01:00 p.m.---Accused s inability to mark attendance was attributable to the unavailability of the Presiding Officer, a circumstance beyond his control---Accused s subsequent departure at 01:15 p.m., while perhaps not ideal, was explained by his state of being unwell and observing a fast---Crucially, this was not a case of the accused absconding or showing a blatant disregarded for the Court's authority---Accused promptly secured pre-arrest bail from the Court and presented himself before the Trial Court at the next opportunity, demonstrating his continued intent to abide by the judicial process---In such a scenario, the failure to mark attendance on a single occasion, for the reasons stated, constituted a technical and venial breach at best---Court s decision to dismiss the application for condonation of absence, cancel the bail and consequently forfeit the entire surety bond was a disproportionately severe response---Law envisioned a graduated approach, where the nature of the breach was commensurate with the penalty imposed---Minor breach called for a minor penalty, not the extreme step of full forfeiture---Power to forfeit a surety bond under S.514, Cr.P.C, was indeed discretionary, but such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or punitively---Objective of taking a surety was to secure the attendance of the accused, not to generate revenue for the State or to inflict a harsh penalty for a minor or explained lapse---Impugned…