TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (3) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid Vinod Shah was also detained under the provisions of COFEPOSA and while he was in custody under the Customs Act as well as in detention under COFEPOSA, his wife had fallen sick and he was requesting for a short parole from the jail authorities. The Government of Maharashtra granted him a week's parole but he could not avail of the same, since he was also under arrest under the Customs Act. 3. The said Vinod Shah then applied to the Metropolitan Magistrate for grant of bail and the Magistrate was pleased to grant him bail in the sum of rupee, two lakhs. The present petitioner Dr. Chimanlal Shah is father of the said detenu. The petitioner stood surety before the Metropolitan Magistrate on behalf of his son in the sum of rupees two lak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sented by Smt. Belose, Public Prosecutor for the State, respondent no. 1. 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the records of this case as well as the original bail bond and the surety bond executed by the original accused and the surety petitioner respectively. 7. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that inasmuch as the surety bond was totally vague and did not specify the day or date when the detenu was to be produced by the surety before the trial Court, such surety bond could not be enforced against him. On the other hand Shri Patwardhan, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 vehemently urged that the bail bond in any event binds a surety to produce the accused to answer the charge on which he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ties had given undertakings to pay certain amounts in case the accused failed to surrender after the judgment of the Privy Council. In the meantime, however, in 1950 after coming into force of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court took up the appeal and dismissed it. The surety could not produce the accused even after the order of the Supreme Court. The proceedings were initiated to forfeit the bond amount from the surety. It was contended on the behalf of the State of Bihar that since the surety had committed a default in producing the accused after the judgment of the Supreme Court, the bond money should be forfeited. The Supreme Court held that the terms of the bond were that the surety had undertaken to produce the accused after ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ink is immaterial and it is not for the surety to say that the bond is illegal but for the Crown to show that the document it wishes to enforce against him is one which can be so enforced under the law. The same view is taken by the Allahabad High Court in Shri Kishan Lal v. State of U.P. 1978 Cri LJ 1429 and by the Gujarat High Court in Chhaganlal Kilabai v. State of Gujarat 1969 Cri. L.J. 1164. Execution of bond is mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure at Section 441. The very opening clause of the said section states as follows : "441 (1) Before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the Police Officer or Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient, shall be executed by such ....