K. C. Agarwal, J. - (1.) THIS is an application in revision by the State of U.P. filed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi, dated 15-6-1973. It appears that in a case under section 420 I. P. C. one Ram Singh was an accused. He applied for bail. His prayer was granted subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount. Bhola Ram and Ghanshyam, opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, executed surety bonds for the appearance of Ram Singh in the court of the Additional District Magistrate (J), Jhansi, or in any other court to which the case was transferred. Ram Singh, admittedly, did not appear on one of the dates fixed for his attendance as a result of which the bonds executed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 were forfeited. On 10-31973, a show cause notice was issued to each of the opposite parties calling upon them to show cause as to why .penalty be not realised from them. On 17-3 1973, they filed a reply which was rejected by the trial court and they were called upon to pay the penalty. In the appeal preferred against the judgment of the ADM (J), the learned Ssssions Judge finding that as the accused Ram Singh did not execute a bond under Sec. 499 Cr.P.C. therefore the bonds executed by the opposite parties could not be enforced, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the ADM (J). Against this order, the present revision has been filed in this court, by the State.
(2.) THE question that needs determination in this case is whether simply because the accused did not execute the bond in terms of Section 499 Cr.P.C. could the opposite parties, who admittedly stood as sureties and executed the bonds, be absolved of their liability undertaken by them. THE court below relied on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in Brahma Nand Misra v.Emperor (AIR 1939 Alld. 682.), for the view that in the event of failure of the accused to execute the bond required under S. 499 Cr.P.C, the bonds executed by the sureties could also not be valid bonds. It appears that it was not brought to the notice of the court below that this decision in Brahma Nand Misra's case (supra) was not followed in subsequent decisions, given in Nisar Ahmad v. Emperor (AIR 1945 Alld. 389). Bahar Husain v. State (1955 AWR 557) and Abdul Aziz v. Emperor (AIR 1946 Alld. 116). In fact, the decision given in Abdul Aziz's case (supra) was by a Division Bench. It has been clearly laid down by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case that under section 499 Cr.P.C. the surety does not guarantee the payment of any sum of money by the person accused who is released on bail, but guarantees the attendance of that person. He is a surety for attendance and not a surety for payment of money. His contract and the contract of the person released on bail are independent of each other. THE fact that the person released on bail himself did not sign the bond for his attendance when called upon, does not make the bond executed by the surety an invalid bond. Accordingly, the view taken by the court below is patently erroneous and cannot be upheld. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 15-6-1973 is set aside and that of the Additional District Magistrate (J) is restored. Revision allowed.;