Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 140
Power to reject sureties
(1) A Magistrate may refuse to accept any surety offered, or may reject any surety previously accepted by him or his predecessor under this Chapter on the ground that such surety is an unfit person for the purposes of the bail bond: Provided that before so refusing to accept or rejecting any such surety, he shall either himself hold an inquiry on oath into the fitness of the surety, or cause such inquiry to be held and a report to be made thereon by a Magistrate subordinate to him.
(2) Such Magistrate shall, before holding the inquiry, give reasonable notice to the surety and to the person by whom the surety was offered and shall, in making the inquiry, record the substance of the evidence adduced before him.
(3) If the Magistrate is satisfied, after considering the evidence so adduced either before him or before a Magistrate deputed under sub-section (1), and the report of such Magistrate (if any), that the surety is an unfit person for the purposes of the bail bond, he shall make an order refusing to accept or rejecting, as the case may be, such surety and recording his reasons for so doing: Provided that before making an order rejecting any surety who has previously been accepted, the Magistrate shall issue his summons or warrant, as he thinks fit, and cause the person for whom the surety is bound to appear or to be brought before him.
Why this exists
Bail sureties exist to make sure an accused person returns to court; the whole system relies on the surety being financially and morally capable of ensuring this. Colonial-era criminal procedure recognised that Magistrates need power to weed out sham or unreliable sureties (for example, professional 'stamp vendors' who sign bonds for a fee without real means to honour them). But because rejecting a surety can effectively send someone back to jail, the law also builds in due-process safeguards — notice, inquiry, and reasoned orders — so this power isn't used arbitrarily. This provision continues that balance from the former Code of Criminal Procedure into the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
How courts read it
Under the identical predecessor provision (Section 447, CrPC 1973), courts have consistently held that an inquiry into a surety's fitness is mandatory, not optional, and that rejecting a surety without notice or a hearing violates natural justice. Courts have also clarified that rejection of a surety does not automatically cancel the accused's bail; the accused must be given an opportunity to furnish a fresh, fit surety before being taken into custody again.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: A Magistrate can reject a surety on mere suspicion without any hearing.
Fact: The law requires a proper inquiry with notice to both the surety and the accused before any surety can be refused or rejected. - Myth: If a surety is rejected, the accused automatically goes to jail.
Fact: The accused must first be given a chance to appear and arrange a fresh, suitable surety before any custody consequence follows.