Section 119: Enforcement of forfeited bail bonds

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 3245/2568 (2025)

   Once the Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's order reducing a bail forfeiture, that decision is final under Section 119 paragraph one and the surety cannot pursue a further appeal to the Supreme Court.

   The surety was fined 283,500 baht after the forfeiture was reduced. The Supreme Court held that because the Court of Appeal had affirmed the reduced fine, its judgment was final under Section 119 paragraph one, so the trial court's acceptance of the surety's further appeal was improper and would not be considered.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 6518/2562 (2019)

   Where the Court of Appeal affirms the trial court's dismissal of a surety's petition connected with bond enforcement, that ruling is final under Section 119 paragraph one and no further appeal to the Supreme Court lies.

   A surety sought a refund of money paid, but the Court of Appeal (Region 5) affirmed dismissal of the petition. The Supreme Court held that ruling was final under Section 119 paragraph one and declined to consider the surety's improperly accepted appeal.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 4419/2560 (2017)

   Cash or securities deposited under Section 114 as bail security are protected: while the case is pending the creditor is not a secured creditor, and Section 119 paragraph two (added by Amendment Act No. 30, B.E. 2558) shields the deposit from other creditors until bond liability ends.

   The Supreme Court held the creditor did not hold secured-creditor status under the Bankruptcy Act because the deposit was held pending performance of the bond. It noted the newly added Section 119 paragraph two, which bars seizure of Section 114 security by other creditors until bond liability is extinguished, unless the court finds the debt non-fraudulent and orders release.

4. Supreme Court Judgment No. 10072/2558 (2015)

   Enforcement of a bail bond forfeited for breach before the court under section 119 follows from the grant of provisional release and the surety's failure to produce the accused, and is a criminal proceeding in its own right. The surety's duty is to bring the accused or the defendant to court by the appointed time, and for as long as that is not done the surety remains in breach. If the surety takes steps to produce the person within the criminal limitation period the court may reduce or remit the fine according to the circumstances, even where the person is produced more than ten years after the forfeiture order. It follows that the officer may apply to enforce the forfeiture order beyond ten years from the order without applying to extend the enforcement period, and while that right of enforcement subsists there is no other ground under section 118 for returning the security or the deposit.

   The trial court had released the second defendant provisionally on a bond valued at 600,000 baht. The sureties failed to produce him on 1 August 2001 and were fined under the bond, and they were notified to pay within fifteen days. In April 2014 they applied to have the security and a 500,000 baht deposit returned, arguing that the judgment creditor's ten-year period for enforcing the forfeiture had expired without any seizure or attachment. The Supreme Court held that enforcement of a forfeited bail bond under section 119 is a criminal proceeding, that the surety's duty to produce the accused continues so that the surety remains in breach until it is performed, and that a surety who produces the person within the criminal limitation period may have the fine reduced or remitted even after more than ten years. The officer could therefore still apply to enforce the forfeiture order beyond ten years without seeking an extension, and since that right subsisted there was no other ground under section 118 to return the security or the deposit. The Court of Appeal Region 2 was reversed and the sureties' application dismissed.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.