https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794783 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. en-us Tue, 09 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Jul 2026 08:46:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794783 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. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 09 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794783