Question

Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer.
A was arrested by the policy 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 provision 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

The correct option is A The contract would be void since its effect is to defeat the provision of the Cr. P,C,

Option (a) is correct because as per (b) criminal case is not mentioned, option (c) and (d) are not valid. The purpose of the agreement in the facts was to defeat provision of Criminal procedure code which wants surety of person's guarantee. So it has defeated the provision of the Law.