The High Court allowed the appeal of a surety penalized for the accused's absence. While upholding the proceeding, the court reduced the penalty to Rs. 5,000 and directed that the deposit already made be treated as payment, dropping all further coercive steps.
Penalty reduced to Rs. 5,000; previous deposit treated 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
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931
CRL.A.No. 695 of 2009 (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/11/2007 IN MC 8/07 IN SC.378/2006 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA)
APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER:
--------------------------------------------------SELVARAJ, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.KURUCHAMY, KUTAKIL (PUTHACKIL) HOUSE, CHAMBA KUZHY, KALKOONTHAL.
BY ADV. SRI.ANIL GEORGE SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SMT.V.A.SARITHA
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.NAZIR.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
Crl.A.No. 695 of 2009
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred by the second surety for the accused in S.C.No.378 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge for N.D.P.S.Act Cases, Thodupuzha. Since the accused, who was released on bail upon the suretyship of the appellant, jumped over bail, the court below initiated proceedings under Section 446 of the Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.6 of 2007. Finally, by the impugned order, the counter petitioner in the above M.C., who is the appellant herein, prepared to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as penalty. It is the above order challenged in this appeal.
Crl.A.No. 695 of 2009
:-2-:
when the case was posted for evidence. Consequently, notice was issued to the appellant and other surety. On 6.10.2007, the appellant appeared through the counsel and the accused was not produced. Hence, the court directed the appellant to appear in person and produce the accused and accordingly, the case was adjourned to 24.10.2007 on which date also the accused was not produced, but the appellant also remained absent in spite of the specific direction. It is, under the above circumstances, the court below passed the impugned order.
Crl.A.No. 695 of 2009
:-3-:
Hence, it is submitted that a lenient view may be taken, especially the appellant is hailing from a poor family.
Crl.A.No. 695 of 2009
:-4-:
so, no further steps need be taken for the realisation of the said amount. Therefore, there will be a direction that all coercive steps taken including if already taken shall be dropped.
The Criminal Appeal is disposed of as above.
V.K.Mohanan, Judge
MBS/
Crl.A.No. 695 of 2009
:-5-:
V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
Crl.A.NO. OF 200
J U D G M E N T
DATED: -3-2009
Crl.A.No. 695 of 2009
:-6-:
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the penalty imposed on the surety for the accused jumping bail is maintainable.
Whether the penalty amount can be reduced or adjusted considering the eventual conviction of the accused.
Whether further coercive steps should be taken after adjustment of the deposit already made.
Selvaraj
State of Kerala
V. K. Mohanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
