Chapter XXXII

Section 441 CrPC: Bond of accused and sureties

New Law Update (2024)

Section 480 BNSS

TRIAL COURT

Court of Session, High Court, Other Courts

Punishment​

Procedural – Bail

Cognizable?

Bailable?

Compoundable?

Bare Act Text

(1) Before any person is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the police officer or Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person, and, when he is released on bail, by one or more sufficient sureties conditioned that such person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond, and shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the police officer or Court, as the case may be.
(2) Where any condition is imposed for the release of any person on bail, the bond shall also contain that condition.
(3) If the case so requires, the bond shall also bind the person released on bail to appear when called upon at the High Court, Court of Session or other Court to answer the charge.
(4) For the purpose of determining whether the sureties are fit or sufficient, the Court may accept affidavits in proof of the facts contained therein relating to the sufficiency or fitness of the sureties, or, if it considers necessary, may either hold an inquiry itself or cause an inquiry to be made by a Magistrate subordinate to the Court, as to such sufficiency or fitness.

Important Sub-Sections Explained

Section 441(1) CrPC

This fundamental sub-section mandates that any person released on bail or their own undertaking must execute a bond for a specified sum of money, ensuring their consistent attendance in court as directed. If released on bail, one or more reliable guarantors (sureties) must also sign this bond to ensure compliance.

Section 441(4) CrPC

This sub-section empowers the Court to ascertain the suitability and financial capability of the proposed guarantors (sureties) before accepting them. The Court may either accept sworn statements (affidavits) as proof or, if deemed necessary, conduct an inquiry itself or through a subordinate Magistrate to verify their fitness and sufficiency.

Landmark Judgements

Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978):

The Supreme Court underscored that bail amounts should not be excessive or unreasonable, emphasizing that denial of bail due to an accused’s poverty and inability to furnish large sums or property-owning sureties is unjust. The judgment advocated for a flexible approach to bail, including the acceptance of personal bonds.

Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979):

While primarily focused on the right to speedy trial and legal aid, this landmark series of judgments implicitly highlighted the systemic issues of prolonged detention due to an inability to meet stringent bail conditions. It reinforced the principle of reasonable bail and efficient judicial process, impacting the practical application of bail provisions like Section 441 CrPC.

Draft Format / Application

Leave a Comment

Scroll to Top