In a criminal appeal regarding forfeiture of bail, the High Court held that leniency was applicable as the accused were out of reach and no connivance was alleged. The penalty was reduced from the full bond amount to Rs. 5,000 per appellant.
The penalty imposed was reduced to Rs. 5,000 each.
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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/19TH SRAVANA, 1939
CRL.A.No. 614 of 2017 ()
(MC 70/2016 IN SC 27/2015 SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE)
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
KOILANDY, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN SRI.SABU GEORGE
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT. M K PUSHPALATHA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-082017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Crl.Appeal No.614 of 2017
JUDGMENT
The appellants were the sureties for the release of the
first accused in S.C. No.27 of 2015 on the files of the court
below on bail.
offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324, 354 and
308 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
below, the court below issued notice to the appellants on
Crl.A.614/2017 -: 2 :-
being satisfied that the bail bond had been forfeited. The appellants appeared before the court below in response to the notice. However, they did not produce the accused before the court below. They also did not submit any explanation to the show cause notice issued to them by the court below. In the said circumstances, the court below imposed the entire bond amount as penalty.
by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants could not produce the accused before the court below as the accused was out of reach of the appellants. There is no allegation that the appellants connived with or aided the accused in jumping out
Crl.A.614/2017 -: 3 :-
the bail by the accused. The appellants are aged 70 years,
submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants are ladies. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the offences for which
the accused is charged, I am of the view that leniency can be taken in the matter of penalty. Accordingly, I order so.
In the result, this Crl.Appeal stands allowed in part, modifying and reducing the penalty imposed by the court below to the extent that each of the appellants shall pay a
penalty of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each, under Section 446(3) Cr.P.C.
Sd/- B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,
JUDGE
dl/11.8.2017
// True Copy //
PA to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether leniency can be taken in the matter of penalty imposed on sureties who failed to produce the accused.
Whether the penalty imposed by the lower court should be modified to a specific amount.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
AFSATH W/O.IBRAHIM
AYISHA
STATE OF KERALA
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
