Criminal Procedure Code

Mohammed Kunju v. State of Karnataka

(1999) 8 SCC 660: AIR 2000 SC 6

Facts

Two persons stood as sureties for Mohan Dharmaraja, a foreign national facing criminal prosecution.
The Magistrate granted him bail subject to:
a personal bond of ₹25,000;
two local sureties of ₹25,000 each;
disclosure of his residential address;
non-interference with witnesses;
and restrictions on leaving Bengaluru.
After his release, the Magistrate modified the residence condition and permitted him to stay in Mysuru, subject to reporting requirements and attendance at trial.
The accused subsequently:
stopped reporting;
failed to appear before court;
and absconded.
The sureties were unable to produce him.
The Magistrate forfeited the bonds and directed each surety to pay ₹25,000 under Section 446 CrPC.
Their appeals to the Sessions Court failed.
A further appeal was entertained by the High Court and dismissed, after which they approached the Supreme Court.

Does modification of one bail condition automatically discharge the existing sureties?
Is each surety independently liable for the full amount mentioned in their bond?
How many appeals are available against an order forfeiting a bail bond?

The central object of a bail bond is to secure the accused’s attendance before the court.
Other conditions concerning:
residence;
reporting;
travel;
or investigation may be subsidiary to that central obligation.
Modification of a subsidiary condition does not automatically substitute or discharge the entire bond where the fundamental obligation to ensure appearance remains unchanged.
A surety unwilling to continue after modification must apply for discharge under Section 444 CrPC.
Until formally discharged, the surety remains bound.
Under Section 446, the court may forfeit the bond when the accused breaches the obligation to appear.
The bond of the accused and the bond of each surety create distinct undertakings.
Consequently, each surety may be separately liable up to the amount promised in that surety’s bond.
Under Section 449:
an order of a Magistrate under Section 446 is appealable to the Sessions Court;
an order of the Sessions Court is not followed by a second statutory appeal to the High Court.

The modification allowed the accused to reside in Mysuru instead of Bengaluru.
It did not remove his obligation to:
attend court;
remain available;
and comply with the judicial process.
The very purpose for which the sureties had undertaken responsibility therefore remained intact.
If the sureties believed that the new residence arrangement increased their risk, they could have sought formal discharge.
They did not do so.
Their obligation continued until the accused absconded.
The Court rejected the argument that the two sureties together could be charged only ₹25,000.
Each had independently promised the court to secure the accused’s attendance and had executed a bond for ₹25,000.
Therefore, each undertaking could be separately enforced.
Procedurally, the Sessions Court had already exercised the single statutory appellate jurisdiction available against the Magistrate’s order.
The High Court should not have entertained a second appeal. Since it had considered the merits, the Supreme Court treated its order as an exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court upheld forfeiture of the surety bonds.
It held that:
alteration of a subsidiary bail condition did not discharge the sureties;
they remained bound until they applied for discharge;
and each was independently liable for ₹25,000.
It also clarified that only one appeal lay—from the Magistrate to the Sessions Court—against the Section 446 order.