In an appeal against bail forfeiture penalty, this court reduced the fine imposed on aged and indigent sureties from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 each to meet the ends of justice, dismissing allegations of connivance.
Penalty reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 each under Section 446(3) CrPC; appeal allowed in part.
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
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/27TH SRAVANA, 1939
CRL.A.No. 726 of 2017 ()
CRIME NO. 678/2016 OF AMBALAMEDU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANTS:
1. KAMALAHASAN S/O.DAMODARAN, AGED 55,NEDIYAMALA PUTHENPURA, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, MUVATTUPUZHA VILLAGE
2. NISAR M.A
S/O.ABDUL JABBAR,VELAKKOT HOUSE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, MUVATTUPUZHA VILLAGE
BY ADV. SRI.M.M.ALIKUNJU
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-082017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No. 726 of 2017
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1:COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C. NO.1097/17 DATED 13.6.2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (POSCO), ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE A2:COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MP NO.1637/17 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (POSCO) ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
SKV
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
===========================
Criminal Appeal No.726 of 2017 ============================== Dated this the 18th day of August, 2017
JUDGMENT
The appellants were the sureties for the release of the second accused in S.C.No.697 of 2016 on the files of the court below on bail. Since the accused did not appear before the court below as directed by the court, the court below issued notice to the appellants on being satisfied that the bail bond had been forfeited. The notice was served on the appellants and they appeared before the court below through counsel. However, the accused was not produced before the court below by the appellants. No explanation was also submitted to the show cause notice issued from the court below. In the said circumstances, the court below directed each of the appellants to pay a penalty of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
each under Section 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Criminal Appeal No.726 of 2017 2
that the appellants are aged and ailing and they have no employment or source of income and in the said circumstances, the appellants find it very difficult to pay the penalty ordered by the court below. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants do not have any property other than the dwelling house. The learned counsel has further submitted that it was only due to the reason that the accused was a friend of the first appellant that the appellants were prepared to be the sureties for the release of the accused on bail.
Criminal Appeal No.726 of 2017 3
facts and circumstances of the case, including the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, I am inclined to modify and reduce the penalty ordered by the court below to meet the ends of justice and accordingly, I order so.
In the result, this appeal stands allowed in part, modifying and reducing the penalty imposed by the court below and remission is granted to the extent that each of the appellants shall pay a penalty of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 446(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Sd/-
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
SKV
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the penalty imposed under Section 446 CrPC for non-appearance on bail can be reduced in light of the appellants' age, health, and lack of income.
Whether the appellants connived with the accused in jumping bail bond.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
NILReferred
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Kumalamasan S/o. Damodaran
Nisar M.A
State of Kerala
B. Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
