Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Govinda Chandra vs State on 4 August, 1950

Pritam Singh vs The State on 29 September, 1970

Dealing with the observations made in Govinda Chandra v. State it was observed in Keshav Narain Choudhary's case as under :- 'WITHvery great respect, I think this reasoning confuses the relationship between a principal arid a surety in civil law with that between an accused person and his surety or bailor in criminal law It a bond is not taken from an accused person himself for his appearance in Court, I see no reason why a bond taken from a surety for his production in Court should be held to be invalid. The learned Chief Justice also referred to section 499 of the Criminal Procdure Code, and observed rightly, if I may say so with respect, that the section contemplates two cases ; one when the accused is to be released on his own bond and the other when the accused is released on bail The execution of a bond by the accused is imperative, and in the case of release of the accused on bail, a bond by sureties has to be executed in additional. But if a bond is not taken from the accused himself but only from a surety, and the accused is released on bail, this would, in my opinion, be an irregularity, but it would not make'the bond executed by the surety invalid.' surety invalid."
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Md. Monohar Khan vs Tripura Administration on 19 December, 1960

12. My attention was drawn for the petitioner to two decisions of the Orissa High Court, Govinda Chandra v. State and Chamra Meher v. State of Orissa In both of which it has been held that a bond executed only by the sureties and not by the accused also is not a bond as contemplated by Section 499(I), Cri. P.C. and hence the provisions of Section 514 relating to the forfeiture of the bond will not apply. I am in respectful agreement with the two decisions. The earlier decision has discussed all the case law on the point before arriving at the decision.
Gauhati High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanmukhdas vs State on 5 September, 1951

2. This is an application in revision from the order of the trial court by a surety forfeiting his bond Under Section 514 of the Cr.P.C. The contention of the surety is that the bond had not been taken strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law as laid down Under section, 499 of the Cr.P.C. and that, as such, it was void and could not have been forfeited. It is alleged that the accused had not entered into any personal bond as required Under Section 499 of the Cr.P.C. The counsel for the surety for this relies on the rulings as cited in Govind Chandra v. State AIR 1951 Cri 18 & Chamra Meher v. State of Orissa AIR 1951 Cri. 179. The perusal of these rulings however, goes to show that no personal bond had in fact been taken from the accused concerned in those cases.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1