BEKARU SINCH vs STATE OF U.P.

The Supreme Court held that the surety bond of the appellant was properly accepted under Section 502 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the forfeiture of the bond was legally justified. The Court clarified that the provisions for continuity of surety bonds do not require a warrant for arrest when a new surety is offered, as the accused was present in court. The acceptance of the appellant's bond was valid despite formal acceptance occurring later, and it was not necessary for each surety to execute the bond on the reverse of the personal bond of the accused.