RAM LAL vs STATE OF U.P.

The Supreme Court held that the forfeiture of a surety bond under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is contingent upon the accused executing a personal bond. The Court clarified that without a personal bond from the accused, the surety bond cannot be forfeited, establishing that the surety's obligation is secondary to that of the accused. The appeal was allowed, and the order of forfeiture was set aside, emphasizing the necessity of a personal bond for the surety's liability to arise.