Question

A was arrested by the police for committing an offence and was subsequently granted bail by the court. One of the conditions imposed by the court for granting bail was that A arrange for a surety for Rs. 50,000. A approached B to be a surety. B agreed, but insisted that they enter into a contract whereby A would deposit Rs.50,000 into B's account, which would be returned to A by B after the case was over.

• A. The contract would be void since its effect is to defeat the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
• B. The contract would be void because A cannot enter into a contract when a criminal case is going on against him.
• C. The contract would be void because the court is not a party to it.
• D. The contract would be valid

Answer 1

Answer: (D)

The contract would be valid

As in the above mentioned case, there's no essential element of a valid contract that's not present. There's a consideration for both as, Rs.50,000 for B and the bailment for A. Hence, it's a valid contract.

Hence, D is the correct option.