# Acceptance and verification of surety bonds

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 78/VIIb-47
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1971-05-21
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 78/VIIb-47
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/acceptance-and-verification-of-surety-bonds-163340
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

231
(iv)
Acceptance and verification of surety bonds
C.L. No. 78/VIIb-47, dated 21st May, 1971 and
C.L. NO. 91/VIIb-47 dated 10th June, 1974

The litigant public should have sufficient time before hand for taking necessary
steps to produce sureties. Magistrates can fix an amount up to which surety bonds may be
accepted provisionally without verification or when the status of sureties are verified by the
lawyer based on his personal knowledge. Non-acceptance of verification should be
specified in the order of the Magistrate. Magistrates, however, will be justified not to
accept even provisionally the verification by such legal practitioners, who have in spite of
2 or 3 warnings by the Magistrates been verifying surety bonds of persons, whose
addresses contained in the bonds were found to be either fictitious or they were of dead
persons.

Magistrates can accept surety bonds provisionally considering only the status
with reference to the immovable properties possessed by the sureties.
C.L. No. 93/VII-b-47 , dated 22nd July, 1975
1.
As far as possible the status of sureties should be verified by presiding officers
themselves on the basis of documentary evidence produced in this behalf and supported
by affidavits of sureties.
2.
Receipts of income-tax, sales-tax, and house tax etc. and a certificate, receipt or
any other document from Municipal Board or Notified area showing the financial status
of a surety may be accepted in proof of status.
3.
Receipts for payment of land revenue and extracts of Khataunis etc., proving the
title of a surety to the land supported by his affidavits that the land in respect of which the
land revenue has been paid by him or to which the extracts of Khatauni relate continues
to be in his possession unencumbered, may be admitted as good proof of status.
4.
The surety should disclose in his affidavit whether he has stood surety for any
other accused in the same case or other case or cases and, if so, whether the surety bonds
in question are still in force.
C.L. No. 3/VIIb-47 , dated 17th January, 1972

With regard to the acceptance of surety bonds, the Presiding Officers should
exercise their discretion judicially, i.e., when the surety files a detailed affidavit as to his
assets, movable and immovable, and it is found that the surety is reliable, the bond can be
accepted without reference to the Tahsil. Where a reference to Tahsil is considered
necessary steps should be taken that there is no corruption and the reports of the Tahsil
should be judged on merit and the Magistrates should not be unduly moved by the report.
Where a false affidavit has been filed or an incorrect report is received from the Tahsil,
severe action should be taken.
C.L. No. 24/VIIb-47 , dated 25th February, 1976

For verification of surety bonds the following directions are issued in continuation
of C.L. No. 3, dated 17th January, 1972:
232
(i)
The surety may be required to file an affidavit showing details of his

property, movable and immovable, and its value indicating clearly

whether he has stood surety in any other case or for any other accused in

the same case and if so in what amount.
(ii)
When a lawyer appearing for the accused in the case verifies the status of

the surety in any amount, further verification may not be insisted upon.
(iii)
The practice of sending surety bonds to Tahsil for verification is to be

discontinued forthwith.
C.L. No. 82/VIIb-47, dated 8th August, 1972

Directions regarding verification of surety bonds should be complied with
strictly. It is the personal responsibility of District Judges to see that the directions are
carried out in true spirit
C.L. No.145/VIIb-47 , dated 19th December, 1978

Likewise, before releasing an accused on bail a declaration should be obtained
from the surety to the effect that, apart from the case in which he is standing as a surety,
he has not stood as a surety in any other case or otherwise he should indicate in which
and in how many other cases and for which accused person or persons he has stood
surety.
C.L. No. 12/VIIb-47 , dated 17th January, 1978

It encloses a copy of confidential Circular Letter No. 25022/99/77-F, I, dated 27th
September, 1977, from Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. This
letter says that it would not be desirable to accept the passport of a foreigner as surety for
any purpose even when a foreigner offers himself to stand guarantee for any other
foreigner for any purpose.
 (v)
Young criminals
C.L. No. 77/IVh-36 , dated 28th May, 1976
Young criminals in the age group of 16 to 21 who are unable to furnish bail after
passing of bail order may be entrusted to the Probation Officer (Government have been
moved to post a Probation Officer in each district and also to amend suitably the First
Offenders Probation Act and Section 360, Cr.P.C., 1973).
(vi)
Bail in cases under Defence of India Rules, 1971
C.L. No. 19 , dated 31st January, 1975

Bail in cases under the Defence of India Rules should be granted only within the
frame-work of the limitations imposed by clause (b) of rule 184 of the Defence of India
Rules, 1971.
(vii)
Compliance of Court's order dated 8.2.90 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail
Application Nor. 1704 of 1990 Guddu v. State of U.P. arising out of Case
Crime No.492 of 1989, U/Ss. 379/411 I.P.C., P.S., Mutthiganj, District
Allahabad.