Allahabad High Court
RAMSEWAK AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
Sureties cannot be discharged from their liability unless the accused is surrendered or produced before the court.
Summary
The petitioners, Ramsewak and another, who had stood as sureties for the accused Abhayram (convicted under Sections 147, 302, 149, 120‑B and 201 IPC), filed a criminal revision seeking discharge from their surety bonds after the accused was released on bail on 15‑Oct‑2025 during the pendency of a criminal appeal. The State argued that the petitioners voluntarily assumed the surety obligation and that discharge without the accused’s surrender would defeat the purpose of the surety. The trial court observed that the accused’s bail was conditioned on a personal bond and two sureties of Rs.1,50,000 each, and that the petitioners had not produced the accused. It held that the petitioners could not be released from liability unless the accused is surrendered or produced before the court. Finding no illegality in the original order, the High Court dismissed the revision.
Issues considered
- Whether sureties for a convicted person released on bail can be discharged without surrendering or producing the accused.
- Whether the order refusing discharge of the surety bonds is legally valid.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 147, 149, 201, 302
Subjects
- surety bond
- bail
- discharge of surety
- criminal procedure
- IPC
- revision
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1255 of 2026
Ramsewak And Another
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Raghuraj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the
State.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated
22.01.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Etawah,
in S.T. No. 308 of 2012, State v. Abhayram and others, Police Station
Pachhon Gaon, District Etawah.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists had
filed an application seeking exemption from the surety bonds furnished by
them on behalf of the accused persons. They no longer wish to continue as
sureties for accused Abhayram. It is further submitted that accused
Abhayram has been released on bail vide order dated 15.10.2025 passed in
Criminal Appeal No. 5208 of 2023 (Abhayram v. State of U.P.), under
Sections 147, 302, 149, 120-B, and 201 I.P.C.
4. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the revisionists stood sureties on their
own volition. There was no direction by any court compelling them to
furnish sureties for a convicted person under Section 302 I.P.C. who has
been released on bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal. If such
sureties are discharged without compliance of the legal requirements, the
very purpose of taking surety would be frustrated, and it would become
difficult to ensure the presence of the accused during the proceedings.
5. The learned trial court has recorded a specific finding that the accused was
released on bail on 15.10.2025 by the High Court during the pendency of the
appeal, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,50,000/- and two
CRLR No. 1255 of 2026
2
sureties of the like amount. The revisionists furnished the sureties
voluntarily in compliance with the said order. The criminal appeal is still
pending before the High Court.
6. The sureties moved an application seeking to be exonerated from their
surety bonds; however, they have not surrendered the accused Abhayram.
Unless the accused is surrendered or produced before the court by the
sureties, it would not be feasible to discharge them from their liability. The
revisionists voluntarily stood sureties for a convicted person under Section
302 I.P.C. It is the duty and obligation of the sureties/revisionists to produce
the accused before the court if they seek to be discharged from their surety
bonds. Otherwise, it would place an undue burden upon the court and may
seriously affect the criminal proceedings.
7. There is neither any illegality nor any irregularity in the impugned order.
8. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
February 26, 2026
K.K. Maurya
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…