Surety amount return follows acquittal and post-acquittal bond compliance, despite pendency of the State appeal.

A surety, though not an accused, was entitled to return of the surety amount after the accused's acquittal and compliance with the post-acquittal bond requirement under Section 437A CrPC. Mere pendency of the State appeal did not by itself justify retaining the surety amount once the trial court had directed cancellation of the bail bonds after the appeal period. The earlier refusal to return the surety was therefore unsustainable, and the order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, being only a surety and not an accused, was entitled to return of the surety amount notwithstanding pendency of the State appeal.

Analysis: The petitioner had furnished surety for the accused at the time of bail. After acquittal of the accused, the trial court had directed cancellation of the bail bonds after the appeal period and required compliance with Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by execution of a personal bond. The earlier rejection of the request for return of surety was based solely on the pendency of the appeal. The pendency of the appeal was held not to affect the petitioner's entitlement to seek return of the surety amount once the accused had complied with the post-acquittal bond requirement.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to return of the surety amount, and the order refusing such return was set aside.

---