• The court may forfeit the bond and order the surety to pay the penalty 

   

• The court may cancel the bond and require the surety to find new sureties

Provided that where such penalty is not paid and cannot be recovered in the manner aforesaid, the person so bound as surety shall be liable, by order of the Court ordering the recovery of the penalty, to imprisonment in civil jail for a term which may extend to six months.

Please inform how are you related to this query. 

If an accused in a cheque bounce case jumps bail, the court may cancel their bail and declare them a fugitive. The accused may also be arrested and face a non-bailable warrant. 

A surety is a person who promises to pay the court money if the accused doesn't appear in court. 

If the accused doesn't meet the bail conditions, the bail amount may be forfeited. 

The surety may be required to pay the full amount of the bail. 

The accused and the surety may face additional charges or penalties. 

The surety may be liable to imprisonment in a civil jail for up to six months.

1. It is true that sureties are paid by the It is cumbersome procedure  to attach, seize and sell the  property pledged as security when accused abscond. It seldom happens unless accused and offence is high profile. People take advantage of this situation.
2. Only the property of surety is liable for confiscation and the  

Everything can happen in India. 

"My question is whether in India, do alleged criminals use services of people for consideration (eg: giving black money or ill gotten wealth etc) who will act as surety by pledging their worthless (agricultural) land? "- Yes.

"And if the alleged criminals skips hearings in future, then will only the property kept as surety be seized by court or will there be further consequences to the person acting as surety?"- the property would be sold and money to the amount of bail will be recovered. Rest will be given back. 

1. Surety with Questionable Land:

   • Alleged criminals can misuse unrelated or weak individuals as sureties by offering financial inducements.
   • Courts verify the surety’s credentials and pledged property's value before acceptance.

2. Consequences for Surety:

   • If the accused skips hearings, the pledged property is seized.
   • The surety may face further liability if the property is insufficient or if fraud is proven.

3. Court's Role:

   • Courts reject sureties if the land or individual does not meet legal requirements.

Hope this helps. For detailed advice, feel free to reach out. A review would be appreciated. Thank you. Shubham Goyal.

- If the accused skipped several hearings of the Case filed against him , then the Court will issue NBW against the accused firstly. 

- Further, when the accused not appear then the Court will summon the surety of the case either appear with the accused or to pay the bound amount which he has signed before the Court. 

- Further, if surety and the accused not appear , then the Court may issue NBW against both of them. 

Only the amount for which he has stood surety will be recovered from the surety 

Your query highlights an important aspect of surety in legal proceedings, particularly in cases where accused persons might exploit loopholes or dubious practices. Let me address your questions systematically:

1. Use of Unrelated Individuals as Sureties:

In India, it is indeed possible for an accused to bring an unrelated person as surety, provided the person meets the court's requirements, which typically include:

• Being of sound financial standing to fulfil the bail amount.
• Having immovable property or other assets to pledge as surety.
• Providing credible proof of identity, property ownership, and solvency.

However, cases where unrelated individuals act as sureties, potentially for financial consideration, do occur. Such practices might involve:

• 
  Pledging of low-value or encumbered property: Some individuals with little to no personal risk might pledge undervalued agricultural land or other immovable property.
• 
  Monetary inducements: Alleged criminals might provide financial compensation to secure such sureties.

Courts are generally cautious about accepting sureties and may scrutinise the surety's solvency and relationship to the accused to avoid such scenarios.

2. Consequences if the Accused Skips Hearings:

If an accused skips hearings after being granted bail, the surety faces legal consequences:

• 
  Property Forfeiture: The pledged property or bail amount will be seized by the court.
• 
  Issuance of Show-Cause Notice: The surety will be issued a notice to explain why they failed to ensure the accused's presence.
• 
  Legal Proceedings: If the explanation is unsatisfactory, the court may impose penalties, including the seizure of pledged property and potential fines.
• 
  Future Restrictions: The surety may face restrictions or disqualification from standing as surety in other cases.

While the surety’s liability is primarily financial, courts can sometimes hold sureties accountable for negligence if they knowingly aided the accused in absconding or failed to disclose material facts.

3. Preventing Misuse of Surety System:

To prevent misuse, courts may adopt the following measures:

• 
  Thorough Verification: Ensuring the solvency and value of the pledged property.
• 
  Background Checks: Verifying the relationship between the accused and the surety.
• 
  Higher Scrutiny for Vulnerable Sureties: For instance, elderly individuals pledging questionable assets may attract additional scrutiny.

Conclusion:

The system allows sureties to help accused persons secure bail, but it is susceptible to misuse. If the accused absconds, the surety primarily bears financial liability, with penalties extending to property seizure and fines. The practice of dubious surety pledges is unethical and undermines the justice system, and courts strive to curb such practices through due diligence.

Thanks and Regards,
Advocate Aman Verma
Legal Corridor

Dear Client, 

Thank you for bringing the topic of sureties in legal proceedings pertaining to cheque bounce cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is not unusual for the accused in India to abuse the system by presenting unrelated persons as sureties. Such sureties might often be vulnerable individuals like aged persons pledging agricultural land or property of substandard worth. In some cases, these sureties might receive financial compensation or may be pressured into the arrangement. Such practices are wholly unethical and nearly fraudulent; the courts do not at all favour such misuse. 

The court may issue proceedings against the surety under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for default of attendance by the accused after the grant of bail. The surety is liable to forfeiture of the pledged property or surety amount. When the court finds for forfeiture of the surety due to collusion with or irresponsible behavior toward the accused, there also arises the possibility that consequences could go out further toward the surety, such as contempt of court or fraud proceedings due to misrepresentation of the value of or ownership in the pledged property. 

The courts are aware of such practices and quite frequently into the bona fides of the surety, including the evaluation of the value of the property, the relationship between the surety and accused, and whether the surety possesses any potential to fulfill obligations. The court may reject the surety or ask for some other guarantees if there is some suspicion of misrepresentation or dirty work. You may address these concerns before the court, or alert the authority about it, most particularly with supportive evidence, and if undertakings themselves come as alive with the course of legal affairs. 

I hope this answers your query.