Bail and bonds under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India are essential components of the criminal justice system. Here’s an overview of their meaning, objectives, principles, and some legal maxims related to them:
Meaning of Bail:
Bail is the temporary release of an accused person from custody, with or without surety (bail bond), awaiting trial or legal proceedings. The purpose of bail is to ensure that the accused does not flee from justice and appears in court when required.
Meaning of Bonds:
In the context of bail, bonds refer to the legal instruments, typically in the form of surety bonds or personal bonds, that are executed to secure the release of the accused. These bonds involve financial guarantees and legal obligations to ensure the accused’s compliance with bail conditions.
Objectives of Bail
The primary objectives of bail under CrPC are as follows:
- To prevent the accused from absconding or tampering with evidence.
- To secure the presence of the accused in court during the trial.
- To balance the interests of the accused’s personal liberty and the need for public safety.
- To ensure that justice is not delayed or denied.
Principles of Bail
Some key principles associated with bail under the CrPC include:
- Presumption of Innocence: Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons not to.
- Non-Discrimination: Bail should not be denied based on an accused’s gender, religion, race, or social status.
- Judicial Discretion: Judges have the discretion to grant or deny bail based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
- Least Restrictive Means: Bail conditions should be the least restrictive necessary to ensure the accused’s appearance in court.
Legal Maxims Related to Bail:
Several legal maxims and principles are related to the concept of bail, including:
- “Bail is the rule, jail is the exception”: This maxim emphasizes that bail should be the norm, and pre-trial detention should be an exception.
- “Fiat justitia, ruat caelum” (Let justice be done though the heavens fall): This maxim underscores the importance of ensuring justice, even if it means granting bail in a case.
- “Justice delayed is justice denied”: This principle implies that the denial of bail can lead to delays in the legal process, which could be unjust to the accused.
Historical concept regarding Bail
The concept of bail has a long history that dates back to ancient times. The notion of bail has evolved over the centuries, and it has taken on various forms in different cultures and legal systems.
Ancient Civilizations
- The origins of bail can be traced back to ancient civilizations, including Mesopotamia and ancient Rome. In these societies, individuals were often required to provide a form of security or a pledge of property to ensure their appearance in court.
Medieval Europe
- The idea of bail continued to evolve in medieval Europe. During this time, the practice of using sureties, or individuals who would vouch for the accused and guarantee their appearance in court, became more common.
Common Law Tradition
- The concept of bail as it is known in the common law tradition, which forms the basis of many legal systems, emerged in medieval England. It was influenced by principles such as the Magna Carta, which provided for the right to bail for those accused of crimes.
English Habeas Corpus Act of 1679
- One of the key developments in the history of bail was the passage of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 in England. This act strengthened the rights of individuals to seek release from unlawful detention and reinforced the right to bail, except for certain capital offenses.
Colonial America
- The principles of bail were carried over to colonial America, where they played a significant role in the legal system. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, contains a prohibition against excessive bail, which reflects the importance of bail in the American legal tradition.
Modern Legal Systems
- Today, the practice of bail has evolved into a more formalized system in many legal systems, including the United States and countries following the common law tradition. Bail is typically determined based on factors such as the nature of the offense, the defendant’s flight risk, and the potential danger to the community.
Bail Reforms
- Over time, there have been efforts to reform bail systems to address issues of inequality and to ensure that bail decisions are based on factors other than an individual’s financial means. Some jurisdictions have moved towards risk assessment and pretrial release programs to make bail decisions fairer and more equitable.
When Bail may be granted as a matter of right:
In many legal systems, including India, bail may be granted as a matter of right under certain circumstances, typically when the offense is bailable. In such cases, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right, and the court does not have the discretion to deny it. The provisions related to this concept can be found in Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India. Here’s an overview of this provision and some relevant case laws:
Section 436 of the CrPC
Section 436 of the CrPC deals with the granting of bail as a matter of right in bailable offenses. It states that when a person accused of a bailable offense is arrested or detained without a warrant, the police officer or the court must release the accused on bail. The accused is not required to furnish sureties for their release.
Case Laws on Section 436:
Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh (1978)
- In this landmark case, the Supreme Court of India clarified the principles related to bail for bailable offenses. The Court emphasized that when a person is accused of a bailable offense, it is a matter of right for them to be released on bail. The authorities have no discretion to refuse bail, and the accused need not provide sureties. This judgment reinforced the principle that bail should be readily granted for bailable offenses.
Natabar Parida vs. State of Orissa (1975)
- In this case, the Supreme Court held that the courts should not impose unreasonable conditions while granting bail for bailable offenses. The Court emphasized that the purpose of bail in such cases is to ensure the presence of the accused in court and that imposing excessive conditions defeats the very purpose of bail.
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014)
- While not specifically about bailable offenses, this case is significant for the broader issue of bail. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of preventing the automatic arrest of the accused in non-bailable cases and emphasized the need to follow the principles of law while considering bail applications.
Maximum period of detention for an undertrial Section 436A CrPC
Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India deals with the maximum period of detention for an undertrial prisoner. It was introduced as an amendment to address the issue of undertrial prisoners who had been detained for periods longer than the likely sentences for the offenses they were accused of.
Section 436A of the CrPC
Section 436A states that if an undertrial prisoner has been detained for a period exceeding half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offense they are charged with, they are entitled to be released on a personal bond, with or without sureties.
In other words, if an undertrial prisoner has already spent more than half the maximum sentence they would receive if found guilty, they are eligible for release on a personal bond, and the court should not deny this release.
Case Law on Section 436A
The case law related to Section 436A includes interpretations and applications of this provision. While there may not be one specific landmark case that stands out, the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have issued rulings and guidelines related to the implementation of Section 436A.
Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979)
- While this case does not specifically address Section 436A, it is a landmark case concerning the rights of undertrial prisoners. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case emphasized the importance of providing speedy justice and releasing undertrial prisoners who had been in detention for extended periods without trial.
Akhil Kumar Shukla vs. Union of India (2018)
- In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of Section 436A and the need to release undertrial prisoners who have spent more than half the maximum sentence in detention. The Court emphasized that the authorities should identify eligible undertrial prisoners and take necessary actions for their release.
Default Bail 167(2) under CrPC
Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India pertains to the grant of default bail to an accused person under certain circumstances. This provision is crucial in ensuring that an accused person is not held in custody indefinitely without a trial.
Section 167(2) of the CrPC:
Section 167(2) of the CrPC deals with the period of detention of an accused person during the investigation of a criminal case. It specifies that if the investigation is not completed within the time limits prescribed by this section, the accused shall be entitled to be released on bail.
The key elements of this provision are as follows:
- If the accused is charged with an offense that is punishable with a term of imprisonment which may extend to ten years or more, the period of detention during the investigation shall not exceed 90 days.
- If the accused is charged with an offense that is punishable with a term of imprisonment of less than ten years, the period of detention during the investigation shall not exceed 60 days.
- In cases involving offenses under special laws, the period of detention may vary depending on the provisions of those special laws.
Significance of Section 167(2)
Section 167(2) is significant because it establishes a safeguard to prevent the arbitrary and indefinite detention of an accused person during the investigation phase of a criminal case. It ensures that the authorities must complete the investigation within a reasonable time frame, failing which the accused becomes entitled to be released on bail.
If the investigation is not completed within the specified time limits, the accused can apply for default bail, and the court is required to grant it. This provision aims to strike a balance between the interests of the accused person’s liberty and the state’s duty to investigate and prosecute crimes efficiently.
It is important for accused persons and their legal representatives to be aware of the time limits specified under Section 167(2) and to file a timely application for default bail if the investigation exceeds those limits. Failure to do so may result in an unnecessary and prolonged period of detention.
Case laws on Default Bail
Certainly, there have been several significant cases related to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India. Here are a few notable cases that have clarified the application of this provision:
Sandeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra (2014):
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that the right to default bail under Section 167(2) is a fundamental right of the accused and that it should not be denied on technical grounds. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory time limits for investigation, and any delay beyond those limits entitles the accused to default bail.
Mian Nazeer Ahmad vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2015):
This case highlighted the significance of Section 167(2) and the right to default bail. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court held that even a one-day delay in completing the investigation could entitle the accused to default bail.
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994)
In this case, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for interpreting Section 167(2). The Court held that the time limits for completing the investigation are mandatory, and any violation of these limits should result in the grant of default bail to the accused. It emphasized that the courts should be strict in applying these provisions to prevent unjust and prolonged detention.
Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam (2017)
This case dealt with the calculation of the 90-day period for offenses punishable with imprisonment for ten years or more under Section 167(2). The Gauhati High Court clarified that the 90-day period should be calculated from the date of detention and not from the date of remand, reinforcing the accused’s right to default bail if the investigation exceeds this limit.
Bail in non-bailable offences
Bail in non-bailable offenses in India is primarily governed by Section 437 and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), along with some special provisions applicable in specific cases. Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Section 437 of the CrPC
- Section 437 provides for the grant of bail in non-bailable offenses. It specifies the conditions under which bail can be granted, and it outlines the factors that the court must consider when deciding on bail in non-bailable cases. Key provisions under this section include:
- The court’s discretion to grant bail based on various factors.
- The requirement that the court should not grant bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense and is likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, or interfere with the trial.
- The need for the court to record reasons for granting or denying bail in non-bailable offenses.
Essentials of section 437
Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India provides the legal framework for granting bail in non-bailable offenses. It outlines the conditions and considerations that the court must take into account when deciding on bail in such cases. The essentials of Section 437 are as follows:
- Discretion of the Court: Section 437 vests the court with discretionary powers to grant or refuse bail in non-bailable offenses. It is not an automatic right of the accused but is subject to the court’s discretion.
- Nature and Gravity of the Offense: The court must consider the nature and gravity of the offense when deciding on bail. More serious offenses may lead the court to be more cautious in granting bail.
- Reasonable Apprehension of Absconding: The court should take into account whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is likely to abscond (flee from justice) if released on bail. This is a crucial factor in bail decisions.
- Tampering with Evidence or Influencing Witnesses: The court should assess whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail. This is another key consideration in bail decisions.
- Previous Criminal Record: The accused’s past criminal record, if any, may also be considered. A history of previous offenses may influence the court’s decision on bail.
- Age, Health, and Gender: The court may consider the accused’s age, health, and gender when making bail decisions. Special considerations may be taken into account, especially for elderly, infirm, or female accused.
- Protection of the Victim: The court must ensure the protection of the victim and consider the victim’s rights and interests when granting bail. The court may impose conditions to protect the victim, if necessary.
- Reasons to Be Recorded: The court is required to record its reasons for granting or denying bail in non-bailable offenses. This transparency in the decision-making process helps ensure fairness and accountability.
- Bail Granted with or without Sureties: When granting bail, the court may require the accused to provide sureties or personal bonds, depending on the circumstances and the court’s assessment of the risk factors.
- Presumption of Innocence: The court must bear in mind the principle of the presumption of innocence. This means that the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty and should not be subject to unnecessary or prolonged pre-trial detention.
- Judicial Discretion: Section 437 emphasizes the discretion of the court in determining bail. The court must weigh all relevant factors and exercise its discretion judiciously.
Section 439 of the CrPC
- Section 439 deals with special provisions related to the grant of bail in non-bailable offenses. It empowers the High Court and the Sessions Court to grant bail in non-bailable cases. Some key points under this section include:
- The High Court or Sessions Court’s authority to grant bail when the court taking cognizance of the offense is the High Court or a Sessions Court.
- The conditions and considerations that apply when the High Court or Sessions Court grants bail.
Anticipatory Bail – Section 438
- Section 438 of the CrPC allows a person to seek anticipatory bail in non-bailable offenses. This provision allows a person to apply for bail before being arrested. If the court grants anticipatory bail, it provides protection from arrest for a specified period, allowing the accused to approach the court for regular bail.
Offenses under Special Laws
- In cases where the offense is governed by special laws (e.g., the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act), there may be specific provisions regarding bail that differ from the general provisions of the CrPC. For instance, under certain special laws, bail may be more challenging to obtain due to the stringent nature of the offenses and the need to prove exceptional circumstances to secure bail.
Conditions, Sureties, and Bond
- In non-bailable offenses, if bail is granted, the court may impose specific conditions such as surrendering passports, reporting to a police station, or providing sureties or a personal bond to ensure the accused’s appearance in court.
Power of High Court & Sessions Court Section 439
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India deals with the grant of special powers to the High Court and Sessions Court for granting bail. It outlines the essentials and scope of this section as follows:
Essentials of Section 439
- High Court and Sessions Court’s Jurisdiction: Section 439 confers special powers on both the High Court and the Sessions Court to grant bail. These courts have the authority to grant bail in cases falling within their respective jurisdictions.
- Bail in Non-Bailable Offenses: Section 439 primarily pertains to the grant of bail in non-bailable offenses. In non-bailable offenses, where bail is not a matter of right, the accused can approach the High Court or the Sessions Court to seek bail.
- Discretionary Power: The court’s power to grant bail under Section 439 is discretionary. It is not an automatic right of the accused but rather subject to the court’s discretion. The court has the authority to consider various factors and circumstances before deciding whether to grant bail.
Scope of Section 439
- Bail in Non-Bailable Offenses: The primary scope of Section 439 is to provide a mechanism for seeking bail in non-bailable offenses. It allows the accused to approach the High Court or Sessions Court for bail when they have been arrested for a non-bailable offense.
- Anticipatory Bail: Section 439 is also relevant in cases of anticipatory bail. If an accused seeks anticipatory bail, they can approach the High Court or Sessions Court for relief under this section. Anticipatory bail is sought when there is a reasonable apprehension of arrest in a non-bailable offense.
- Consideration of Factors: The court, under Section 439, has the authority to consider various factors when deciding on bail. These factors may include the nature and gravity of the offense, the likelihood of the accused absconding, the potential for tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the accused’s past criminal record, and other relevant circumstances.
- Recording of Reasons: The court must record its reasons for granting or denying bail under Section 439. This requirement ensures transparency and accountability in the decision-making process.
- Protection of Rights: Section 439 is a mechanism that safeguards the rights of the accused. It enables them to approach the High Court or Sessions Court for relief when they are unable to secure bail at the lower court level.
- Appellate Jurisdiction: If a bail application is denied by the Sessions Court, the High Court can exercise its appellate jurisdiction under Section 439. The High Court can review the Sessions Court’s decision and grant bail if it finds that the lower court’s decision was incorrect.
Anticipatory Bail Section 438 CrPC
Anticipatory bail is a legal remedy available under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India. It is a pre-arrest bail, which means that it allows an individual to seek bail before they are arrested in anticipation of their arrest in connection with a non-bailable offence.
Features of Anticipatory Bail
- Pre-Arrest Relief: Anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest remedy. It allows an individual to apply for bail before being arrested. This is in contrast to regular bail, which is sought after an arrest.
- Non-Bailable Offenses: Anticipatory bail is generally sought in cases where the individual anticipates their arrest in connection with a non-bailable offense, which is an offense for which bail is not a matter of right.
- Discretionary Relief: The court has the discretion to grant or deny anticipatory bail. It weighs various factors before making a decision, including the nature and gravity of the offense, the likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence, and the interest of justice.
- Protection from Arrest: If granted anticipatory bail, the accused is protected from arrest for a specific period, typically until the conclusion of the investigation or the filing of charges.
- Conditions and Sureties: The court may impose certain conditions on the accused while granting anticipatory bail, such as surrendering their passport, cooperating with the investigation, or providing sureties.
Nature of Anticipatory Bail
Anticipatory bail is considered a procedural safeguard that balances the individual’s right to personal liberty with the state’s power to investigate and prosecute crimes. Its nature can be summarized as follows:
- Protective Right: Anticipatory bail is a protective right granted to individuals to prevent their arrest in cases where they may be falsely implicated or have a reasonable fear of being arrested in a non-bailable offense.
- Presumption of Innocence: The grant of anticipatory bail acknowledges the presumption of innocence, recognizing that individuals are entitled to liberty until proven guilty.
- Preventive Measure: It serves as a preventive measure to protect the rights of the accused and to ensure that they are not subject to unnecessary or wrongful detention.
- Balancing Act: The nature of anticipatory bail requires the court to balance the individual’s rights and the interests of justice, ensuring that the accused’s liberty is protected without hampering the investigation.
Scope of Anticipatory Bail
The scope of anticipatory bail in India includes the following:
- Protection from Arrest: Anticipatory bail is primarily intended to protect individuals from arrest in cases where they have a reasonable fear of being arrested for a non-bailable offense.
- Investigation Stage: It can be sought at the investigation stage of a criminal case, typically before the filing of charges. Once charges are filed, an individual can seek regular bail.
- Appellate Jurisdiction: If anticipatory bail is denied at the lower court, individuals can appeal to a higher court, such as the High Court, for relief.
- Conditions and Safeguards: The court may impose certain conditions on the accused when granting anticipatory bail, such as cooperating with the investigation, attending court proceedings, or providing sureties.
Anticipatory bail is primarily governed by Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India. This section outlines the provisions related to the granting of anticipatory bail. Additionally, several case laws have clarified the scope and principles of anticipatory bail. Here’s a brief overview:
Section 438 of the CrPC
Section 438 of the CrPC deals with the grant of anticipatory bail. It allows individuals to seek pre-arrest bail in cases where they have a reasonable belief or apprehension of being arrested for a non-bailable offense. Some key features of this section include:
- The court’s discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail.
- The factors the court must consider, including the nature of the offense, the likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence, and the interest of justice.
- The duration and conditions that may be imposed when granting anticipatory bail.
- The right to approach the High Court or Sessions Court for anticipatory bail.
Case Laws on Anticipatory Bail
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab (1980)
- This landmark case laid down important guidelines for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy and can be granted with or without conditions, depending on the specific facts of each case.
Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (1996)
- In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that while considering anticipatory bail applications, the court should be cautious and should not impose unnecessary conditions that would infringe upon the applicant’s personal liberty.
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra (2011)
- This case clarified that anticipatory bail should not be refused merely on the basis of the seriousness of the offense, but the court should consider factors like the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or absconding.
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014)
- Although this case primarily deals with the arrest of individuals, it has an indirect bearing on anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court highlighted the need for restraint and care when making arrests and stressed the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the duty of law enforcement.
Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020)
- In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that while granting anticipatory bail, the court must consider the nature and seriousness of the offense, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of the applicant tampering with witnesses or fleeing from justice.
Cancellation of Bail under CrPC
Cancellation of bail is a legal remedy available when a person granted bail violates the terms and conditions of their bail or when new circumstances arise that warrant revoking the bail.
Features of Cancellation of Bail
- Violation of Bail Conditions: One of the primary reasons for seeking the cancellation of bail is the accused’s non-compliance with the conditions imposed by the court when granting bail. This could include failure to attend court hearings, tampering with witnesses, or violating any other terms set by the court.
- Fresh Evidence or Changed Circumstances: Bail can also be canceled if new evidence or changed circumstances come to light that demonstrate a heightened risk of the accused fleeing from justice, tampering with witnesses, or posing a danger to society.
- Discretionary Relief: Like the grant of bail, the cancellation of bail is a discretionary remedy. The court must weigh the facts, circumstances, and interests of justice before revoking bail.
Considerations for Cancellation of Bail
The court considers several factors when deciding whether to cancel bail:
- Nature of the Offense: The seriousness of the offense plays a significant role in the court’s decision. More serious offenses may result in stricter scrutiny and a higher likelihood of bail cancellation.
- Violation of Bail Conditions: If the accused has violated any conditions set by the court, such as failing to appear for trial or contacting witnesses, this can be grounds for cancellation.
- Risk to Justice: The court must consider whether the accused’s actions pose a risk to the proper administration of justice, including the potential for witness intimidation or tampering.
- Public Safety: If there are concerns that the accused may pose a danger to the public or community, this is another consideration for bail cancellation.
Section for Cancellation of Bail
The relevant section for the cancellation of bail in India is Section 437(5) & 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section provides the legal framework for seeking the cancellation of bail.
Case Laws on Cancellation of Bail
M. N. Das vs. State of Tripura (2000)
- In this case, the Supreme Court held that the primary consideration for the cancellation of bail is whether the accused, if released on bail, is likely to abscond, interfere with witnesses, or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002)
- The Supreme Court in this case emphasized that the power to cancel bail should be exercised sparingly and judiciously. The mere likelihood of misuse of freedom is not a valid ground for cancellation.
Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2000)
- This case reaffirmed the principles for canceling bail, highlighting that the grounds for cancellation must be substantial and not based on mere apprehension or possibility.
Dharampal vs. State of Haryana (2014)
- In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that while deciding bail cancellation, the court should examine whether there is a prima facie case of misuse of bail, and the cancellation should not be granted based on vague or irrelevant considerations.
Forfeiture of bail-bonds
Certainly, here’s a tabular comparison of Sections 446 to 450 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India:
| Section | Title and Content |
|---|---|
| Section 446 | Procedure when bond is forfeited |
| – If a person who has executed a bond does not fulfill the conditions of the bond, the bond can be forfeited. | |
| – The court can initiate proceedings to recover the amount specified in the bond, and if the bond was taken with sureties, they may be called upon to pay the penalty. | |
| Section 447 | Procedure in case of insolvency |
| – If a person who has executed a bond is declared insolvent, the bond and the sureties become void. | |
| – The court may proceed against the sureties as if they had defaulted on the bond. | |
| Section 448 | Bond required from minor |
| – If a minor (a person below the age of 18) is required to execute a bond, the court may require the minor’s guardian or another suitable person to execute the bond on their behalf. | |
| Section 449 | Appeal from orders under Section 446 |
| – Any person who is adversely affected by an order of forfeiture under Section 446 may appeal to the higher court within a specified time. | |
| Section 450 | Subsistence allowance to attendants of persons |
| – If an accused person is ordered to be in custody, the court may grant a subsistence allowance to the person’s family members or attendants who are required to stay with them. | |
| – The amount of the allowance is determined by the court, and it can be recovered from the accused’s property if the person is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. |
Section 446A: Cancellation of Bond & Bail Bonds
| CrPC | Chapter XXXII |
|---|---|
| Section 446A | Cancellation of Bail-Bonds |
| Description | |
| Without prejudice to the provisions of 446, where a bond under this Code is for appearance of a person in a case and it is forfeited for breach of a condition— the bond executed by such person as well as the bond, if any, executed by one or more of his sureties in that case shall stand cancelled; and thereafter no such person shall be released only on his own bond in that case, if the Police Officer or the Court, as the case may be, for appearance before whom the bond was executed, is satisfied that there was no sufficient cause for the failure of the person bound by the bond to comply with its condition; Provided that subject to any other provision of this Code he may be released in that case upon the execution of a fresh personal bond for such sum of money and bond by one or more of such sureties as the Police Officer or the Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient. | |
