Appeal challenging penalty on sureties for bail jumpy reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 1,000 each. Penalty deposit adjusted against subsequent delay order payment.
Impugned penalty reduced to Rs. 1,000 each. Previous deposit adjusted as payment. Coercive steps dropped.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL, 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1931
CRL.A.No. 627 of 2009
(MC.91/2008 OF Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad Hoc) Court-I, Kollam)
APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:
KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
Crl.A.No. 627 of 2009
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009
J U D G M E N T
First appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.1589
of 2006 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad Hoc) Court-I, Kollam and appellants 2 and 3 are the sureties for the first appellant who is involved in a case punishable for the offence under Section 308 of I.P.C. He was released on bail on the basis of the bond executed by appellants 2 and 3, but subsequently, he jumped over bail. Consequently, the court below registered M.C.No.91 of 2008 under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. and finally passed Annexure
A1 order directing each of the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as penalty. It is the above order challenged in this appeal.
Crl.A.No. 627 of 2009
:-2-:
below on 29.11.2008 and the Sessions Court has already enlarged him on bail upon fresh surety bond executed by the other persons and therefore, a lenient view may be taken. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the above submission stating that the appellants 2 and 3 and also the first accused violated the bail condition and therefore, they cannot escape from the liability and though the bond amount was Rs.20,000/-, the court below has directed to pay only Rs.10,000/- each and as such, there is no illegality and no interference is warranted.
Crl.A.No. 627 of 2009
:-3-:
the delay petition, by order dated 19.3.2009, each of the appellants was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1000/- as a condition to condone the delay. As directed by this Court, the appellants deposited the amount and receipt produced before this Court showing the remittance. If that be so, the amount, that has already been deposited by the appellants before the court below, can be adjusted and treated as payment of the penalty amount as revised and refixed by this Court in this order. Accordingly, the court below is directed to adjust the said amount which has already been deposited by the appellants as per order of this Court dated 19.3.2009 towards the satisfaction of the penalty amount as revised and refixed by this Court. The court below is further directed to drop all coercive steps, including if any already taken, in pursuance of the order impugned.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
V.K.Mohanan, Judge
MBS/
Crl.A.No. 627 of 2009
:-4-:
V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
Crl.A.NO. OF 200
J U D G M E N T
Crl.A.No. 627 of 2009
:-5-:
DATED: -3-2009
Crl.A.No. 627 of 2009
:-6-:
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the penalty imposed on the sureties for non-appearance of the bail jumper should be reduced considering subsequent bail release.
Whether the deposit made by the appellants under a delay condonation order can be adjusted towards the reduced penalty.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI. SIVAKUMAR
SMT. SIVAKUMARY
SMT. PRASANNAKUMARY
STATE OF KERALA
V.K. MOHANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
