Rajan v. Vishnu
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed an appeal against an order forfeiting the appellant-sureties' bail bond. Finding the accused had surrendered, remanded, discharged, and paid the fine, the Court took a lenient view and set aside the impugned penalty order.
What did the court decide?
The appellant's criminal appeal against the impugned order of penalty was allowed, and the order was set aside.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
CRL.A.No. 1264 of 2014 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2014 IN MC NO.8/2014 IN S.C NO.142/2013 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONERS 2 & 3:
1. RAJAN, S/O KUNJAPPAN, ESWARAMANGALATH HOUSE, ALA VILLAGE KODUNGALLUR TALUK, KOTHAPARAMBU DESOM.
2. GIRIJAKSHAN, S/O SUBRAMANIAN, CHAKKAMATTIL HOUSE, ALA VILLAGE KODUNGALLUR TALUK
BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ
RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONERS
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order imposing penalty on sureties for forfeited bond stands allowed when accused surrendered and paid the fine.
Whether the High Court can set aside the forfeiture order and allow the appeal.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
RAJAN
- appellant
GIRIJAKSHAN
- respondent
STATE OF KERALA
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court