No surety cannot be arrested however he will have to pay the entire surety amount in court, as per the surety bond. Arrest warrant will be issued against the accused. Bail in future may be refused
So yes surety means that you are guarantor that the accused will be present before the court as and when required and it is the duty of the surety to get him to the court if he is absconding or else court can issue r/w against the surety of he fails to get the accuse before the court
Yes. The court can issue notice to the surety if the accused is absconding when released on bail. The surety has to appear before the court. In case where the Accused does not appear before the Court when released on bail, the Court can come against the Surety only to the extent of the bail amount.
Courts have held that sureties cannot be discharged, without the appearance of the accused person and more particularly, due to the fact that the accused person is absconding and a non bailable warrant is also pending against him
Section 446. Procedure when bond has been forfeited.
(1) Where a bond under this Code is for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court and it is proved to the satisfaction of that Court, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, that the bond has been forfeited, or where, in respect of any other bond under this Code, it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which the bond was taken, or of any Court to which the case has subsequently been transferred, or of the Court of any Magistrate of the first class, that the bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid. Explanation.- A condition in a bond for appearance, or for production of property, before a Court shall be construed as including a condition for appearance, or as the case may be, for production of property, before any Court to which the case may subsequently be transferred
Reference: Mohammed Kunju And Another vs State Of Karnataka
It is clear that a surety can be bound to the extent of the amount mentioned in the bond, by forfeiting the bond, as per the procedure contemplated under Section 446 of Cr.P.C, whenever an accused does not appear on the date fixed by the Court or he absconds. Therefore, whenever a Court finds that the accused person has absconded and a surety wants to get discharged, the concerned Court can resort to the procedure contemplated under Section 446 of Cr.P.C and forfeit the bond executed by the surety and recover the amount covered by the bond by way of a penalty, from the surety. Beyond this, a Court can never compel a person to be a surety against his willingness. Section 444 of Cr.P.C merely provides for the procedure for discharge of sureties and that procedure cannot be read to the extent that the surety will never be discharged, till the accused in person is brought before the Court. Such a restricted reading of the provision will go against the right of the surety to get himself discharged and to bind him permanently as a surety, affects the very liberty of a person, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Both the Courts below lost sight of this very important aspect.