1. Criminal Revision No. 179 of 1939. - This Rule is directed against an order of the Additional District Magistrate of 24-Parganas dated 19th December 1938 in which he directed that a bond which had been executed by a man named Gyani Meher Singh should be forfeited and that he should pay a penalty of Rs. 200. It appears that the petitioner Gyani Meher Singh had been accused of an offence under Section 124-A, Penal Code. After his arrest he gave an undertaking to the effect that he 'would not deliver any speech and thereupon he was released on bail. The bail bond was executed by Gyani Meher Singh himself and Babu Girin Das Gupta executed the bond as a surety whereby he bound himself to forfeit to His Majesty the sum of Rs. 500 in the event of any breach of the bond. The conditions mentioned in the bond were to the effect that Gyani Meher Singh would give security for his attendance in Court on 5th August 1938 and on subsequent days fixed for the hearing of the case against him and further he undertook not to deliver any speech until the disposal of the case. It has been found by the learned Magistrate that Gyani Meher Singh in fact delivered a speech on 7th November 1938 and it was due to this fact that he held that the bond should be forfeited.
2. It is argued by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the order of forfeiture is illegal because there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code whereby an undertaking for good behaviour such as that which has been embodied in the bail bond in this case can be so included. The object of bail is primarily to ensure the appearance of an accused person on a certain day and place. The offence in respect of which Gyani Meher Singh was accused was a non-bailable one punishable with transportation for life. Strictly speaking this man ought not to have been released on bail at all having regard to the provisions of Section 497(1), Criminal P.C., and doubtless had it not been for the fact that he was prepared to give an undertaking to the effect that he would not deliver any speech he would never have been so released. The fact remains however that under the provisions of Section 499, Criminal P.C., it is provided that before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such a sum of money as the police officer or the Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person and, when he is released on bail, by one or more sufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond and shall continue so to attend until other, wise directed by the police officer or the Court, as the case may be.
3. It follows therefore that the only condition contemplated by a bail bond is a condition for attendance in Court and it further follows that a bail bond in which any other condition is included of the nature or condition with which we are now dealing, such a bond cannot be regarded as a bond under the Code. Section 514, Criminal P.C., which prescribes the procedure to be followed on the forfeiture of a bond only relates to bonds taken under the Code. In this view of the case, I do not think that the learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to forfeit the bond executed by the petitioner and his surety in this case, as that bond could only be regarded as a bond taken under the Code in so far as the bond is for the appearance of the petitioner in Court. In view of the undertaking which had been given by Gyani Meher Singh I consider that the procedure which should have been adopted in a case of this sow would have been for the police to bring to the notice of the Court the fact that there had been a violation of the undertaking in order that the Court might thereupon cancel the bail bond in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction: It is also possible that by violating this undertaking the petitioner may have committed a contempt of Court. I am of opinion however that this undertaking, not to make any speech, should not have been imported into the bail bond and that the forfeiture of this bond was therefore illegal. The Rule must, accordingly, be made absolute and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 19th December 1938 is set aside.
Criminal Revision No. 180 of 1939
4. In view of my judgment in the other Rule, the Rule obtained by Girin Das Gupta must also be made absolute and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 19th December 1938 is also set aside.