Further, by the combined effect of Sections 119,120,122,127,128,137,141 and 143 of the Criminal Procedure Act, forfeiture of bail bond is contemplated during criminal trial and not after the discharge and acquittal of the accused person as in the instant case. Once judgment is delivered, resulting in conviction or discharge and acquittal of the accused person, the obligation of the surety terminates. Thus, an application for forfeiture, brought after judgment has been delivered with the accused person discharged and acquitted, is with respect, unknown to law.
FRN v. MAISHANU & ORS LGC(11/5/2007) K-L
With respect to the applicant counsel, the proof required under Section 137 of the CPA above cannot simply rest on the exhibition of the bail recognizance alone. The bond itself and the facts causing the forfeiture must be proved.
Needless to say strict proof is required before a surety may be penalised for breach of recognizance.
Therefore, proof required under Section 137 of the CPA, in my view, is not limited to the exhibition of the bail recognizance alone.
FRN v. MAISHANU & ORS LGC(11/5/2007) H