Bhanwarlal Mansukhlal vs The State

Shinde, J.—The Sessions Judge Shujalpur ordered the surety bond of the applicant to be forfeited. Against that order the surety has filed this application in revision.

The learned Counsel for the applicant has urged only one point before me. He argues that u/s 353, Gwalior Criminal P. C. bail can be taken only for the period the appeal is pending. As the judgment of the appellate Court has been delivered, the surety cannot be called upon to produce the accused. Section 353, Gwalior Criminal P C is equivalent to S 42G, Indian Criminal P. C. The section runs as follows:

(1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person the appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against, be suspended and also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his bond.

The language of the section does not justify the inference that bail can be taken only for that period during which the appeal is pending. All that the section lays down is that the Court is authorised to release a convicted person, it in confinement, on bail during the pendency of the appeal. The order of releasing the accused on bail can be passed while the appeal is pending. But the section does not restrict operation of bail only for the period the appeal is pending. This argument, therefore, has no substance. It may also be mentioned here that the learned Judge, who decided the appeal, in his judgment directed the lower Court to take proper steps to make the accused undergo the remainder of the sentence. Hence it cannot be said that the surety is being called upon to produce the accused after the judgment was delivered. The argument of the learned Counsel, therefore, cannot be accepted.

The application in revision is, therefore, dismissed.